Judge Orders EPA To Produce Science Behind Pruitt's Climate Claims (scientificamerican.com) 428
EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled. From a report: The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn't exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency. Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box," where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested "EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change." On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.
You see, science is hard (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Farewell, Freedom of Information Act! (Score:4, Interesting)
It was nice knowing you. But now you're just getting in the way of the current administration. You were signed into law by a Democrat, so expect to be repealed soon by a Republican majority Congress.
Here's his Science (Score:2, Insightful)
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P.. There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
Prove without a doubt it IS man made... (Score:2)
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made. I don't think that's possible. We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer. Lots and lots of research, but nothing that even comes close. When you have thousands of models, and thousands of different results, seems that there is something that points more toward uncertainty than certainty in the models. Is it likely that man is causing SOME warming? Without a doubt. How much? Cannot be proven,
Re: (Score:3)
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made.
Technically you can't prove anything in science but that aside, there's a very large body of evidence supporting the hypothesis.
I don't think that's possible.
That's because you're a total fucking moron. Viz:
We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer.
The measured temperature is well within the bounds of the first IPCC report. The fact you don't know that reality matched the models at this point yet f
Re: (Score:3)
We cured cancer years ago and no one said anything?
Re:Prove without a doubt it IS man made... (Score:4, Informative)
In 1972, J.S. Sawyer calculated there would be about 0.6 C of global warming by the end of the century (the actual amount of warming was 0.5 C as the CO2 concentration was a bit lower than predicted). In 1967, Manabe & Wetherald predicted that doubling the CO2 concentration would increase global temperatures 2 C. (see here for more early papers [davidappell.com].)
Neither of these papers were based on a sophisticated computer model, they were based on energy balance calculations - greenhouse gases slow down the exit of energy to space, therefore the surface warms - plus feedbacks such as the relation between temperature and absolute humidity.
The early predictions of global warming came during a period of global cooling. The scientists stuck their necks out and got the right answer then - so if you don't trust computer models, feel free to trust that early pre-computer-model research. It got roughly the same answer the computer models are getting today.
It's true that some models disagree: some say the ECS is closer to 2.0 C, others closer to 4.5 C. Meanwhile the average temperature over land has increased over 1 C since 1975. None of these numbers justifies inaction to fund clean energy.
Science behind? (Score:3)
There's zero science in the current EPA, as well as most of Trump's administration. He cannot produce any real science because he has none. Or at most, he'll be giving a bunch of stuff that have some pretty curious links to coal corporations, produced in the late 70s or something.
And it'll either be blatant lies that wouldn't pass peer review, or just something vague like "more evidence is needed", which btw, we already have.
I needs no repeating, but there is OVERWHELMING evidence and consensus that climate change is man made by the entire scientific community. And this includes people who have been studying it for a good part of their lifetimes. It includes an incredibly substantial body of evidence from multiple perspectives. It comes from analysis with historical records, measurements taken from recent years, modeling and prediction, how the planet is already changing, and the relationship with all sorts of pollution that you can go out and see today.
I don't think deniers get how massive the body of evidence is. We even have researchers from a couple of decades ago hired by oil companies saying it was happening back then, only of course these companies chose to hide the research and exploit the information for themselves instead of releasing it in public.
"I doubt it" by brainless politicians and by the coal industry do not get a pass. I don't know what else is needed for deniers to get this, but I suspect it's gotten to such an extreme that they'd rather drown in a coastal city while shouting it's not happening rather than considering the idea that they might just have been wrong all this time. It doesn't take a whole lot to step out of your cult-like status and think a bit.
All the extreme weather events that are likely related to climate change happening several times a year and somehow it's still hard to believe. This sort of stubborness only ends in death. Asking to produce science will do nothing, because it was never backed by it. It will eventually get to a point where it's either them with their baseless claims or it's us paying the price for their ignorance.
The worst thing of it all is that even in the fictional scenario that they were right, there is simply no reason to be against the general measures against climate change. US is just like the anti-social entitled asshole idiot that behaves like a baby while the rest of the world is taking responsibility. Coal, oil and gas dependancy have always been a health hazard, it benefits no one to keep it, and even countries that were highly dependant on those are realizing after too long a time that it's simply not worth the damages it causes... you know, countries like China, famous for cities so heavily polluted during some days of the year with coal mines that people were simply collapsing and dying on the streets. Both China and India already have some generations condemned to live with lung related and respiratory diseases, why would anyone want to follow their past model?
Do people really want to get into scenarios like those, or go back to industrial revolution era pollution levels? Like, fortunately the global economy, scientific community, people who already accepted man made climate change as a reality, and people overall against Trump's EPA have enough power to continue the transition... coal dependancy will end whether politicians like it or not. But if it wasn't for that, de-regulation and climate change denial would logically end up resulting in pollution levels of the same scale of China and India.
And it's not like the US isn't already littered with superfund sites to show what happens when things like that gets ignored.
It's incredibly sad to see how entire groups of people cannot learn anything from history. Makes me think that in the end, our species will meet it's mass extinction event way sooner than other species because of our so called great "intelligence".
Re:liberal judge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:liberal judge (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, the judge has not ruled that the EPA must prove the claim. The judge has ruled that the evidence must be released under the FOIA request. Even if the EPA only releases one rough non-reviewed report and says "that's all we have", they're in compliance with the court.
Then it's up to the American public to recognize this is ridiculous, and vote for something better. Good luck with that.
Re:liberal judge (Score:4, Funny)
Re:liberal judge (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass.
Flag as Inappropriate
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And that is quite possibly the case - but it makes them look REALLY bad if they have to admit that the agency charged with protecting the environment has taken an official position in direct opposition to the scientific consensus, without having ANY evidence to back their position. Makes Pruitt look like a traitorous corporate whore, and the rest of the agency like his complicit bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
the solution is not a left vs right power struggle (Score:5, Insightful)
no one ever asked epa to provide "proof" that global warming exists
Conservatives have asked, on numerous occasions. It has been provided as research papers, peer reviewed. And in some cases the data has been collected from multiple sources. And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you weren't given an answer.
tl;dr- climate change is occurring. oceans are warming. global changes in weather is inevitable. these changes is caused, at least partially, by human activity. these are the things we know. ask me in 10 years and I can give you an answer with more detail and be able to predict even more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking at Pruitt's wording, and I have to say, he isn't incorrect the way he worded it. CO2 isn't the primary cause of climate change. That would be the Milankovich cycles. CO2 is causing it to change at an accelerated rate though. Semantics, but whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
So, no, heat from the earth's core is not really a top contender. And why should it be? Even if this number were much larger, there's no reason Earth's core should suddenly warm the earth much faster than it did in previous centuries and millenia .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Welp found the contrarian.
They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You ain't Einstein.
Re:liberal judge (Score:5, Informative)
Except they DID provide the evidence global warning exists, now the current administration is claiming otherwise without presenting any evidence for why they changed conclusions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
please promptly find a roof to walk off.
He'd just float. Gravity is liberal fake science bullshit too. Stupid ivory tower intellectuals with their "experiments" and "proofs". There are opposing views to every theory, and mine is that the surface of the planet is all sticky and that falling is just liberals throwing the Earth at you when you try to leave it.
Re: liberal judge (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
that's bad news. Because if the sun is the driver of the increase in world average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's basically slowly going nova and we're all toast.
Re:liberal judge (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but almost everything you wrote is wrong.
When you only ask one side to provide proof of something, that's bullshit.
That's true, however...
When the one side making the absurd claims is the side that has not conducted any repeatable experiments on the matter, has not been able to accurately predict things, and keeps revising both their models and data points in order to fit their hypothesis, yet they're the "accepted" side, that's bullshit.
I absolute agree with you that Pruitt needs to produce some evidence to support his position. But, of course, in you thought you were attacking climate scientists. However, nothing you wrote actually applies to them. They provide the data, the methods, the models and the repeatable experiments for virtually everything they do. Curiously, however, your statements apply well to every single alternative theory that tries to explain the observed facts of climate change. None of them have been able to survive even casual scrutiny from interested reviewers.
But the most bullshit thing is not realizing the simple fact that carbon dioxide is absolutely not the primary cause of global warming.
Except, of course, that it actually is. It's the primary driver of global warming because of the volume and longevity of CO2 produced by human activity.
Not only is CO2 a weak greenhouse gas, human production of it doesn't account for the majority of it.
The majority of the total CO2 in the atmosphere? That's true, for now, since pre-industrial levels are estimated to have been lower than 290 ppm and we're currently around 411 ppm. However, human activity has produced all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial levels. We know that because natural factors have been acting as a CO2 sink and absorbing more CO2 than they release. CO2 is a relatively weak CO2 gas but again we produce a lot more of it and it last a very long time in the atmosphere so it's the primary driver of the change, and then it is amplified because a little bit of warming from CO2 increases the average amount of water in the air which drives further warming. It's similar to pennies, they might not be worth much individually, but a million pennies is worth a lot more than a dozen hundred dollar bills.
The primary cause of warming and cooling is the fucking sun, by far.
No, it's not [skepticalscience.com]. The sun has cooled slightly while the average temperature continues to rise, and that's a good thing because the earth would be warming even faster if the sun were actually warming. In any case, the effect of the sun's tiny variation in output is far smaller than the effects of the increase in the greenhouse effect.
If you want to get into secondary factors, then plain ol' water vapor beats out CO2 by a country mile.
Because water vapour content is driven by average temperature, it's considered an amplifier rather a primary cause of warming. It applies the effect of every other greenhouse gas, but it can not be increased or decreased independently and that's why CO2 is considered more important as a greenhouse gas than water vapour.
You've got a few things right, but you've failed to understand what those things actually mean.
Re:liberal judge (Score:4, Informative)
Human-caused global warming has been predicted by scientists since Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (See this list of early global warming papers [davidappell.com]).
Many of these papers were produced during the global cooling trend before 1975. Climate scientists predicted global warming before it happened and now over 90% of climate scientists are in agreement on the subject. Numerous studies show humans as the cause of recent global warming [skepticalscience.com]. Yet you think mainstream scientists haven't made their case?
Until you add feedback mechanisms such as the increased absolute humidity that corresponds to increased temperatures (water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas). Then it has a much greater effect.
Sort of. We started with 280 ppm in the atmosphere, now we're up to 410 ppm, so I guess humans are responsible for less than half!
However I assume you are referring to the myth that humans release less than 4% of all the CO2 that is "released" each year.
In a very twisted way, this is correct. A glass of water evaporating in a room with 90% humidity does not just "release" water molecules, it also absorbs them from the air. But if someone uses this fact to argue that water glasses will fill up in a humid room, there is something wrong with that, isn't there?
Similarly the ocean "releases" more CO2 every year than humans, but it absorbs more than it releases. Drawing attention to CO2 coming out of the ocean while completely ignoring the CO2 going into the ocean is highly misleading. The ocean's pH is dropping, why do you think that is?
Humidity depends on environmental conditions. When temperatures increase, the water vapor concentration (absolute humidity aka vapor pressure) also increases.
The 11-year average of solar irradiance has varied by only about 0.1% over the last century and solar output has decreased in recent decades [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK then, it sounds like you can provide the stack of peer-reviewed papers that Pruitt is being directed to cough up. Links?
Re: (Score:2)
Good job!
You found two. Now you only need a few thousand more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
You are however correct about one thing, CO2 isn't our only big problem
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is an interesting one [cambridge.org]
An interesting paper, thanks. I'd say the authors have substantially contributed to our understanding of the long term evolution of ice sheets, and their models will (within boundaries and with significant uncertainties) go some way towards predicting how the northern hemisphere ice sheets will change over the coming decades.
Still, it's worth pointing out that the fact that it was briefly warmer 5000 years ago doesn't contradict either the notions that CO2 traps heat or that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes global warming, or the notion that mankind is responsible for rapidly increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
As regards your other nugget:
...which is what led Phil Jones, Director of the CRU of East Anglia and a primary contributor to the IPCC, to agree that
according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical
. So if the heating over those periods - two well before the rapid rise in CO2 - are the same as the "big trigger" that caused the whole IPCC/global warming issue in the first place, then how do we know that it's because of CO2?
That's a good question, and I guess the answer is "We don't, completely". Numerous factors influence the climate, not just levels of CO2. The fact remains though that we are rapidly increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2, whereas we have no control over the other factors.
I feel it's worth pointing out, just in case someone reads your post and doesn't follow the links, a couple of things:
Firstly, unlike your "quote" which is actually the question that was asked (missing the question mark), Phil Jones' response was that "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Ascribing false certainty, as you do, might lead one to question the integrity of your argument.
Secondly, it's also worth pointing out that, since the rates are similar, it also follows that temperatures have been consistently rising, and are continuing to rise. One might think that this alone justifies concern over what will happen as they continue to rise, with regards sea levels, weather patterns and behaviour, and so on.
Finally, since you linked to the article, why don't we give Phil's answer to the question "Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?". His answer: "No"
Re: (Score:3)
What Phil Jones said was, "Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 197
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of leader do you want?
Oh wait, I think I know.
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few minor niggles:
1) science, of any sort, doesn't imply any specific policy - assuming that it does is a fallacy;
2) "scientific research" must be distinguished from "sciencey research", the former requiring a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the latter requiring only lab coats and control over the peer review process;
3) the EPA is a government organization, not a "scientific" one.
Re: Move along nothing to see here... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the problem is that uncertainty is a thing, and even where we may be certain about specific bits of science, our "science" of economics is notoriously uncertain, and a straight line cannot be drawn between where we know things, like the absorption spectrum of CO2, and to a field where we obviously don't, like economics.
So even if you accept that AGW is real, significant, measurable, and unprecedented,
Re: Move along nothing to see here... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the two are intrinsically linked, so any solution will be complex.
I highly suggest reading the book Doughnut Economics [kateraworth.com] on this topic. The essential argument the author makes is that ultimately our economies are based upon the systems of the earth. We can make things out of wood without trees, we can't grow food without soil, etc. Even things like mineral extraction and fossil fuel use are also ultimately rooted in earth systems.
If we want to have a robust world economy that creates opportunity for everybody, it *must* be ecologically sustainable. Anything else is just borrowing from future generations and will eventually collapse when resources run out.
The doughnut economics book also traces a lot of the history of economic theory to sets of mathematical models invented to describe things limited in scope that have now been taken grossly out of the original context.
There are also plenty of economic models that are just too damn simple. A number of these came about shortly after Newton wrote down the basic laws of planetary motion, which inspired other disciplines to describe the world with mathematics. Of course, the systems are radically different. Planetary systems are relatively simple when compared to economics, which can involve literally millions of people making independent decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right - those two scenarios are not reasonable.
Ecological sustainability is basically the question of whether or not a given practice could be done for a long time without causing damage. Think for example of the air we breath. A question of sustainability is a measure of how much pollution we are putting out. Is it little enough that it can break down at least as fast as
Re: (Score:3)
This is not an easy question, and you are certainly right that going back to 1850 is not the answer. You are also right that part of sustainability is directly tied to efficiency, but efficient by what measure?
The free market is immensely powerful at optimizing, but it is largely just concerned with a single variable - short term, direct financial cost. Our fo
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research.
Not true [realclearpolicy.com].
These recommendations emanated from hearings held in the mid-to-late 1970s by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, despite a “boisterous mob of critics,” including those within the scientific community who pleaded with the Committee to wait for more research “before we make announcements to the American public.” In response, Committee Chairman Sen. McGovern responded that “Senators don’t have the luxury that the research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in.”
This was a classic case of, "We have to do something, this is something, we have to do this." The scientists were very clear that there was no research supporting the policy recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, science doesn't give a damn about your personal options.
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's been almost half a millennium, so you've had plenty of time to come up with something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Agreed. Since Copernicus' view was later proven correct we should assume all views will later be proved as correct.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're agreeing with the original poster who believes "proper science never has just one side"?
You're setting up a strawman to refute something I never said.
Don't know about Heliocentrics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer [howstuffworks.com] on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff... An Earth-centered frame of reference is perfectly valid as the GP stated; the math is ugly, and the motions of the planets become extremely complex from an equation standpoint, but it is completely consistent and nothing "jumps" around. Unless you think Einstein is wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do you make the retrograde motion of planets work in a geocentric system? You really going to try to make planets jumping around in space "work"?
I'd suggest you do a quick primer [howstuffworks.com] on frames of reference in the theory of relativity. But who knows, maybe Einstein was wrong about all that stuff...
Bringing up Special Relativity when the subject is rotating non-inertial reference
frames doesn't really help your case. You might want to dial down your smugness.
Re: (Score:2)
Epicycles. You have your planets moving in circles which are centered upon points which are themselves moving in circles. Add more circles if you need to. That's how the geocentric astronomers did it. They didn't realise it, but they'd gotten half-way towards inventing the fourier transform. The model actually does work to some extent - it's unwieldy, but it will predict the motions of the planets with a good degree of accuracy. The geocentrists of old were not idiots - they simply had limited observational
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Political hack organization trying to pin down a politician. Nothing to see here.
Proper science never has just one side. There is tons of evidence Man/Humankind/CO2 is not the primary cause of changing climate.
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed. Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore.
melt
Judging by your last paragraph, I would take anything you learned in your "grammer" school with a grain of salt......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather.
Yet oddly, in this "grammer" school you learned neither spelling, correct sentence case, nor syntax.
Re: (Score:2)
"Grammar school" is a type of school in the British education system. It does not actually focus upon grammar any more than other schools. There was a time they did, some generations ago when knowledge of latin and greek was respected, and the name is just a vestige of that era.
The main characteristic of a grammar school is an academically selective admission. Potential students need to demonstrate good grades to be accepted, while the regular comprehensive schools will take students regardless of academic
You're an Idiot. (Score:2)
This must be John Bannon, posting from the commode again.
Re: (Score:2)
There is tons of evidence Man/Humankind/CO2 is not the primary cause of changing climate.
However, that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if man is the primary cause. If we're exacerbating a bad situation, we still need to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:5, Informative)
Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore.
Dude, you are so wrong; wrong enough that I've wasted quite a few mod points to post this.
5 seconds with Bing and the search term 'gcm that includes ocean currents' had Evaluation of the GISS GCM ModelE [nasa.gov] in the top few results. This article is dated 2002 and talked about how ocean currents are included in the GISS GCM. Ocean currents have been part of GCMs (General Circulation Models) for at least that amount of time.
Now, I am skeptical of the robustness of GCMs. Their predictive power appears to be weak over time (look at how accurate the CFSV2 is over a three month period, for example); and probably because their resolution is quite low; GCMs typically having a horizontal resolution of between 250 and 600 km, 10 to 20 vertical layers in the atmosphere and sometimes as many as 30 layers in the oceans [ipcc-data.org]. But that will change as computers get faster or more massively paralleled.
Disagree with GCSs all you want. But at least try and do some rudimentary research on why you disagree with them..
Re: (Score:2)
Then give us a link to a kilo or two of this
I'm just curious... Is there any link that could honestly be supplied that would change your mind?
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results.
Here is one [procon.org], by Professor Don Easterbrook, based on the PDO. And his model nicely fits the data - including the 1940 to 1970 cooling trend and the pause/drop from 2000 to 2015 - that is available. In other words, it is the oceans (and the currents therein, that distribute the heat), not the atmosphere that drives things. Which makes sense, given the amount of heat that can be stored/distributed by each...
:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
Low UID doesn't seem to matter much, either...
Re: (Score:3)
Oldie, but goodie: https://skepticalscience.com/g... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Move along nothing to see here... (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile, CO2-based climate forcing has purely theoretical explanation. In the end it's a simple heat balance equation.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no complete climate models, and, in addition, there cannot be. Weather is chaotic, and therefore climate is also chaotic. You cannot collect sufficient data to have a complete model.
What you can have is models that work fairly well. Normally what they do is create an ensemble of models that work well on past data and project the places where they agree. Unfortunately, for, among other reasons, political reason, the ICCC eliminated from consideration models that made extreme forecasts. This ca
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Maybe not... (Score:5, Informative)
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies.
Does not agree needs an explanation. The concept that human inserted CO2 and methane into th eatomsphere requires invalidating some laws of physics.
You don't validate a theory by claiming everyone else is wrong. Gotta show the work proving your theoty is the right one.
Otherwise you can simply say Humans do not prodoce CO2 warming because God ignores it and won't let the temperatures change. That's as valid an idea as any of the denial ideas. It isn't science, because it can't be proven wrong, but there we go.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific
Re:Maybe not... (Score:4, Interesting)
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing, but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true. Same with the wavelength absorption properties of CO2 - their existence might be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it is not *sufficient* to exclude natural (or other different man made) climate drivers.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
So give me the current work that invalidates the Greenhouse effect on a planetart scale.
Remember current work. Everything I have seen so far has been invalidated. This is usually based on cherry picking data, and anything that isn't understood is waved like a smoking gun -showing that all of the data is wrong. The best example of this was the smoking gun difference between satellite observations and high altitude balloon measurements. This differnce was touted as the destruction of any and all Global warming period. I was referred to many pages touting this work.
Problem is, later work brought the differences into agreement - including by the team who wrote the paper notint the anomalies.
Regardless, the US Environmental Protection agency is presumably not a organization that marches in lockstep to the Republican administration, andrelies on science. to make it's decisions,
Surely they have this evidence that completely refutes AGW, and perhaps The entire physic of energy retention (or rejection) of certain gases based on their presence. Seems a little odd that the head of the EPA refuses to show the work. that will silence the purveyors of incorrect science - I mean, he is using truth and not politics, amirite?
Re: (Score:3)
No. When people say things like "science is never proven" they are referring to the fact that inductive reasoning doesn't "prove" something unobserved can't happen or doesn't exist. (Granted, as a practical matter, assuming there are no black swans until one is observed is often the smartest thing to do. Similarly, assuming CO2 will p
Re: (Score:2)
As Richard Feynman [youtube.com] so clearly pointed out, if your model does not fit data, then it is wrong. The model proffered says that CO2 drives our climate. However, we see that even Phil Jones, lead researcher of the IPCC (and the IPCC itself) admit that the same heating [bbc.co.uk] occurred from 1975 to 1998, as occurred in 1910 to 1940 (very low CO2 output) and from 1860 to 1880 (essentially no CO2 output). So if the temperature changes are the same for essentially zero, very little, and a lot of CO2 output, then can we c
Re: (Score:3)
true science rigorously performed that will once and for all and without question
Why should he do anything that any undergraduate who has taken a course on the philosophy of science can tell you completely contradicts the scientific method.
Any and every advocate who prattles that 'the science is settled' needs to be ignored. That's just how it works. The science is NEVER settled.
No kidding. Here's your Whoosh.
But for all of the truth in "The science is never settled", at some point things cross from good theory to that 99.99 percent certainty level. Maybe gravity doesn't actually exist. It's possible that the speed of light is quite variable, and what looks like an ancient universe is fully compatible with the 6000 some year old age of the universe. It is possible that the so called greenhouse effect - or anti-greenhouse effect - doesn't hold up on a planetarty scale. Or perha
Re: (Score:3)
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies.
It does when you are the head of a purported scientific agency and have been using Does not Agree as the basis for rolling back policies and programs that have been backed by scientific studies. He doesn't agree that humans contribute to global warming? Fine. Show us the the studies that led him to that belief. It's the Environmental Protection Agency. Their default action should always be "what protects the environment".
Costs and benefits (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a silly reductionist position. The EPA is a government agency that has both a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, as well as a responsibility to the well being of *citizens*. The "environment" is only a proxy here for protecting humans, and we must *obviously* take off the table those things that protect the "environment" but harm people.
Their default action should always be "what policy balances the costs and benefits for the people".
Re: Costs and benefits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's an assertion, not an argument.
The whole point is that we must be judicious about our policies because it is possible, if not highly likely, that we are misjudging risk and spending large costs for marginal problems.
If you live in a world where you skip the part about actually doing the cost/benefit analysis, and assume that all policies are
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We live in a dynamic universe of uncertainty, and to believe that any prognostications for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now are any more accurate than an oil company's outlook for next quarter is hubris.
As sad as it may be, the EPA's most efficient use of resources may be dealing with acute conditions, not chronic ones. We need to start from the position that there are some wicked problems out there with great uncertainty that make the proper policy prescriptions very cloudy. Only by admitting that from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
58%? Citation needed.
Re: That's not a scientific demand. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a demand for evidence. Perhaps in your world evidence is not scientific? Methinks you haven't the foggiest notion what does or doesn't constitute a scientific demand.
Re: That's not a scientific demand. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Mr. Pruitt thinks that there is research going on casting serious doubts on the results the IPCC is basing its recommendations on, then he surely is able to point to that research. Because it was Mr. Pruitt who demands that the EPA needs more scientific transparency. This is just the demand to actually cast some light to make the science more transparent for us to judge.
Re:Proving a negative (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand.
Sure it is. All he has to do is show evidence of what is the primary driver of global warming. If that primary driver isn't humans, then voila, it's done!
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation.
If this is true then there would be evidence of it (which there is not).
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose.
A lot of good research has been done on the topic. No single study shapes the view of the scientific community. Living in denial is fine... as long as you don't stand in the way of people trying to address the issue.
Re:Proving a negative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose. But the actual authors of the papers used to generate this statistic say the study is in error, because their paper was misinterpreted, they didn’t conclude there was global warming, they said global warming was occurring but it wasn’t manmade, they said global warming was occurring but it was a normal fluctuation, they said global warming was occurring but the effects would not me drastic, or global warming was occurring but it would be potentially beneficial. So, consensus is not at all been achieved.
So it should be simple then for Pruitt to provide follow-up studies proving flawed methodology or data with the original research and providing evidence that climate change is a completely natural occurrence with minimal human influence. That's all the court is asking for. I'll just leave my car running since I'm sure it won't take too long.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
Yes, I believe this is called "end of the last ice age".
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1970s scientists floated the premise we were on the cusp of an ice age, and to mitigate that threat proposed melting the polar ice caps by spreading lampblack over them.
This was a tiny minority of the scientists studying climate, and nobody now would even remember this except that the mainstream media of the time picked up on it and ran with it, perhaps because the average citizen would conflate this with another big problem back then, the concept of nuclear winter. Fast forward a few decades and cretinous turds with a few dozen brain cells are trying to present this as if the majority of climate scientists bought into this concept, that the whole community flipped from b
You won't be going. (Score:2)
Neither will anyone else.
We will be feeding you to the Frost Giants, however.
Carry on your pitiful life.
Re:If Republicans were serious (Score:5, Informative)
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend. The Republicans love their deficit spending. Bush Sr did it. Clinton had to clean it up which is why a lot of military folks hate him for closing all those bases except that Republicans forced him to balance the budget so he did what he hand to. Bush Jr created a whole new cabinet position with DHS while cutting taxes so again we couldn't pay for it. Of course going to war at the same time as tax cuts was pretty foolish as well. That lead to Obama having to clean up except he had zero support for anything. Republicans at least worked with Clinton to clean up the mess prior.
With Obama's weak leadership paving the way for the Trump era I don't expect our deficit to be in good shape for the next President especially with even deeper tax cuts while still being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan among many other hot spots that aren't cheap. Nevermind all the increased spending on border security which again can't be paid for without raising taxes which he just cut or severely cutting other programs which will cause issues like childhood hunger which was a solved problem in the Clinton era to come back with a vengeance as it has through Bush and Obama years.
People keep talking about entitlements being a problem when they were created to solve a specific issue. If you remove the entitlement you better prepare to address that issue in a new way or at the very least admit your solution is for people to die in the streets instead of getting public assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend. The Republicans love their deficit spending. Bush Sr did it. Clinton had to clean it up which is why a lot of military folks hate him for closing all those bases except that Republicans forced him to balance the budget so he did what he hand to.
So basically you are saying one Democrat president found a way to pay for what was being spent because the republicans forced him to?
And yes, I'm frustrated that the only time the Republican's have managed to balance the budget is when we had a Democrat for president. Just as I am sure Democrats are frustrated that the Democrats wait for a Republican congress before attempting amnesty. It's a shame it takes losing power to spur our parties into action.
Re:You forgot one little thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Real conservatives are, indeed, pro science. That any can call themselves Republican in the face of the current Republican party I doubt. They either qualify what the mean by Republican to explicitly refer to some previous edition of the Republican party, or they are fake conservatives. (I count people who just close their eyes and go la-la-la as fake conservatives.)
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, you cannot provide EVIDENCE that something DIDN'T occur.
You can prove something didn't happen. For example, person X didn't go inside the bank lobby between 1 and 3pm. however that person was in jail with a constant video feed, thus assuring that it didnt happen.
With respect to something not repeatable, like the earths climate, on one hand you can't run multiple trials, but on the other hand it's disingenuous, ignorant, and in blatant denial of reality to say we can make no claims or predictions. Adding CO2 and methane are easily shown by repeatable exper
Re:Lets cut the crap... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets cut the crap... republicans and conservatives are traitors to the country and people
Fucking moron. This is NOT a partisan issue. Voting democrat will NOT help. Just stop. The problem is corruption and nepotism which infects BOTH political parties. Even if it is possible to say one side is worse than the other, it makes no difference. It is like saying being burned alive is worse than being drawn and quartered. You may be correct, but you are still going to die an extremely painful death. Let's talk about the dying rather than the method of dying.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternately they could find references via the 2016 paper "Learning from mis [springer.com]