The Sound of a Swamp Draining

[koshergrl]

The EPA has been corrupted by the lawless left to do its bidding, as have many government agencies.

It has been corrupt from it's inception. It's an unconstitutional agency that was created to unconstitutionally interfere with public access to resources, water, and land...including those resources, lands and water that are privately owned.

 

[alang1216]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

There are no climate 'best models'.....

Using the English language, best is used here as a relative term. If there are ANY models, there is a 'best'. I appreciate your confirmation.

 

[alang1216]

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

I can't speak for other leftist turds but I'd put my faith in PEER REVIEWED science before I'd trust any non-scientist who brings paranoid politics into a scientific discussion.

'PEER REVIEWED' by other pro climate change peers is not science.

And you know that how?

 

[koshergrl]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

There are no climate 'best models'.....

Using the English language, best is used here as a relative term. If there are ANY models, there is a 'best'. I appreciate your confirmation.

No, they're all frauds.

 

[bripat9643]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

Smart people disregard "models" that produce nothing but shit.

 

[westwall]

Funny thing is that these stupid global warming scientists admitted themselves that they were using fake data. How dumb was that?

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

Modelling is NOT data. Or do you not understand that simple fact? Data is OBSERVED, models are created, thus they contain whatever biases are programmed into them. Thus they are NOT valid. And yes, with a PhD in geology I am very competent to judge them, and have even used them in my own work. However, when we use them they are very specific, and extremely focused.

Take a look at every single climatology study and you will see this term used in the Abstract "We use a simple model".....So they are admitting to using simplistic computer models to try and recreate the most complex engine on the planet, namely the climate.

Put another way, climatologists have yet to be able to come up with a model that can recreate what happened yesterday. A model that can't do a hindcast is worthless. That too is a fact.

So we can agree that modelling is valid science? As for the accuracy of models that is another issue. Geologists have modeled the earth's interior. Have they ever been there? No but their models generate data that fits what little information does exist from earthquakes. Scientist will use the best models available even though none are ever going to be 100%.

No. Models are not valid science. They can be a tool, used by scientists, but anyone who bases the body of their work on models is a fool. We actually have a lot of data about the crust, mantle and interior of the Earth. No, we have not been there, but we can use sound waves to map out what the interior looks like. We have ophiolite sequences on the surface that we can dissect to generate an understanding of the rock that makes up the mantle, thus we have physical examples that we can then use to test the models to see if they are valid.

That is a mountain of difference between the models that we use, and the models that climatologists use. They have NO means of testing them for validity, they just assume they are, but when the models have been tested against real world observations they are shown to be 100% (no, that is not an exaggeration) wrong.

The most complex models on the planet are those used by Formula One race teams. They are called Computational Fluid Dynamic models and they are concerned with very few variables. They cost tens of millions of dollars to create, and they cost tens of millions of dollars to operate, and more than 99% of what they produce is trash. The modelers will take a part, and they will develop thousands of design changes to that part which they will then run through the model. Out of over a thousand runs they will chose maybe three that show promise which they will then make and test in a wind tunnel. Most of those then fail. For every 10,000 parts that are modeled, they will produce one that actually gives a race benefit.

And that is from the most complex, expensive, and well run computer model systems in the world.

 

[koshergrl]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

Smart people disregard "models" that produce nothing but shit.

Shysters create fake *models* ...snake oil salesmen did it in the old days..the EPA and the USFS and a variety of other illegal snake oil agencies today do it.

 

[Leo123]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

There are no climate 'best models'.....

Using the English language, best is used here as a relative term. If there are ANY models, there is a 'best'. I appreciate your confirmation.

Ha Ha.....Nice try but.....there are no accurate climate models therefore even the 'best' models are garbage. Your belief is not science and your rephrasing and parsing of what I said does not somehow make your fantasies into reality. Interesting how some of these morons like to compare shit to shit and declare one pile of shit 'best.'

 

[Slade3200]

The EPA agency and everything they do is a racketeering shitstorm.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency's use of "secret science" to craft regulations.

"We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record," Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. "Otherwise, it's not transparent. It's not objectively measured, and that's important."

Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.

"EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

House passes bill to ban EPA 'secret science'

Thanks, I read that one too after I saw the OP was sourcing the bias daily caller. Sad that now a days we gotta Read multiple accounts of the same report to get a sense of what the facts are.

yeah, I have sort of mixed feelings on the science thing. On one hand, there are people funding solely by industries that want to pollute more and cheaper, so the EPA is a target. But on the other hand, it does seem like the EPA attracts employees who are elitist tree hugger types.

The best is to have the majority be honest actors that are not going to lie to push a political agenda. I think most people have integrity enough to do that. Also good to have industry people mixed with environmentalists so we are protecting both our businesses and our environment

The EPA is staffed entirely by Marxist kranks who wan't to destroy capitalism.

 

[alang1216]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

Only a moron has faith in manmade models created by people with an agenda and have 0.00000000001% knowledge of the variables.

It seems the ones with an agenda are you deniers, I put my faith in science.

 

[BluesLegend]

The EPA has been corrupted by the lawless left to do its bidding, as have many government agencies.

It has been corrupt from it's inception. It's an unconstitutional agency that was created to unconstitutionally interfere with public access to resources, water, and land...including those resources, lands and water that are privately owned.

The EPA was absolutely required, I'm old enough to remember superfund sites. I'm old enough to remember all the dead fish washing up on the shores of Lake Erie and the no swimming signs. BOTH government and the private sector were polluting the hell out of the country.

Sadly, the EPA was politically weaponized by lowlife filthy Democrats and turned into a Dem gestapo. Did you know the EPA routinely looks the other way when Dem cities spill hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage into public waterways, so fouling the water beaches have to be closed due to public health concerns? They have been looking the other way for decades, why? Because Dem's run those cities.

 

[bripat9643]

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

I can't speak for other leftist turds but I'd put my faith in PEER REVIEWED science before I'd trust any non-scientist who brings paranoid politics into a scientific discussion.

'PEER REVIEWED' by other pro climate change peers is not science.

They are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed.

 

[westwall]

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

I can't speak for other leftist turds but I'd put my faith in PEER REVIEWED science before I'd trust any non-scientist who brings paranoid politics into a scientific discussion.

Soooo, you consider peer review by the mans wife to be valid? That has actually happened BTW. The one thing that the CLIMATEGATE investigations weren't able to sweep under the rug was the outright corruption that has taken over the climatological peer review process. It isn't called "Pal" review for nothing.

 

[Leo123]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

Only a moron has faith in manmade models created by people with an agenda and have 0.00000000001% knowledge of the variables.

It seems the ones with an agenda are you deniers, I put my faith in science.

Again....Climate change is not science.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

Modelling is NOT data. Or do you not understand that simple fact? Data is OBSERVED, models are created, thus they contain whatever biases are programmed into them. Thus they are NOT valid. And yes, with a PhD in geology I am very competent to judge them, and have even used them in my own work. However, when we use them they are very specific, and extremely focused.

Take a look at every single climatology study and you will see this term used in the Abstract "We use a simple model".....So they are admitting to using simplistic computer models to try and recreate the most complex engine on the planet, namely the climate.

Put another way, climatologists have yet to be able to come up with a model that can recreate what happened yesterday. A model that can't do a hindcast is worthless. That too is a fact.

So we can agree that modelling is valid science? As for the accuracy of models that is another issue. Geologists have modeled the earth's interior. Have they ever been there? No but their models generate data that fits what little information does exist from earthquakes. Scientist will use the best models available even though none are ever going to be 100%.

No. Models are not valid science. They can be a tool, used by scientists, but anyone who bases the body of their work on models is a fool. We actually have a lot of data about the crust, mantle and interior of the Earth. No, we have not been there, but we can use sound waves to map out what the interior looks like. We have ophiolite sequences on the surface that we can dissect to generate an understanding of the rock that makes up the mantle, thus we have physical examples that we can then use to test the models to see if they are valid.

That is a mountain of difference between the models that we use, and the models that climatologists use. They have NO means of testing them for validity, they just assume they are, but when the models have been tested against real world observations they are shown to be 100% (no, that is not an exaggeration) wrong.

The most complex models on the planet are those used by Formula One race teams. They are called Computational Fluid Dynamic models and they are concerned with very few variables. They cost tens of millions of dollars to create, and they cost tens of millions of dollars to operate, and more than 99% of what they produce is trash. The modelers will take a part, and they will develop thousands of design changes to that part which they will then run through the model. Out of over a thousand runs they will chose maybe three that show promise which they will then make and test in a wind tunnel. Most of those then fail. For every 10,000 parts that are modeled, they will produce one that actually gives a race benefit.

And that is from the most complex, expensive, and well run computer model systems in the world.

Get with the program. We need to gut our economy based upon manmade computer models created by people with an agenda that are based upon secret data no one is allowed to see.

Has to be true. They all fly private jets to their meetings to discuss and live in very large homes.

 

[alang1216]

No, they're all frauds.

Is that your assessment or are you parroting what you've been told by some ideologues?

 

[alang1216]

Get with the program. We need to gut our economy based upon manmade computer models created by people with an agenda that are based upon secret data no one is allowed to see.

Has to be true. They all fly private jets to their meetings to discuss and live in very large homes.

I recently visited Iceland and saw a glacier that had retreated a kilometer in 50 years. A common story around the globe.

Should I believe you or my eyes?

 

[bendog]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency's use of "secret science" to craft regulations.

"We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record," Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. "Otherwise, it's not transparent. It's not objectively measured, and that's important."

Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.

"EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public."

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

House passes bill to ban EPA 'secret science'

Thanks, I read that one too after I saw the OP was sourcing the bias daily caller. Sad that now a days we gotta Read multiple accounts of the same report to get a sense of what the facts are.

yeah, I have sort of mixed feelings on the science thing. On one hand, there are people funding solely by industries that want to pollute more and cheaper, so the EPA is a target. But on the other hand, it does seem like the EPA attracts employees who are elitist tree hugger types.

The best is to have the majority be honest actors that are not going to lie to push a political agenda. I think most people have integrity enough to do that. Also good to have industry people mixed with environmentalists so we are protecting both our businesses and our environment

yeah, I also think that the EPA should build a consensus about what it'll regulate. There's really no debate about how much pig and chicken shit in water or emissions in the air. Coal being the outlier because the few really rich coal mine owners are fighting a last ditch (scorched earth(- war.

the regulating of western arroyos that flood maybe once a year ...... come on. Global warming seems rather proven, but maybe let some people die so opinion solidifies.

 

[koshergrl]

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

House passes bill to ban EPA 'secret science'

Thanks, I read that one too after I saw the OP was sourcing the bias daily caller. Sad that now a days we gotta Read multiple accounts of the same report to get a sense of what the facts are.

yeah, I have sort of mixed feelings on the science thing. On one hand, there are people funding solely by industries that want to pollute more and cheaper, so the EPA is a target. But on the other hand, it does seem like the EPA attracts employees who are elitist tree hugger types.

The best is to have the majority be honest actors that are not going to lie to push a political agenda. I think most people have integrity enough to do that. Also good to have industry people mixed with environmentalists so we are protecting both our businesses and our environment

The EPA is staffed entirely by Marxist kranks who wan't to destroy capitalism.

Their entire reason for living is to facilitate land seizure, and evict people from it.