EPA head lies, or is deluded, about the science of global warming

[Grooveriding]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...ioxide-emissions-cause-climate-change/519054/

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tt-pruitt-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-video

It was a bright warm day in March, and while the clocks weren’t quite striking thirteen, something was awry. Scott Pruitt, the new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was rejecting the international scientific consensus about human-caused global warming.

He did it, actually, about when the clocks were striking nine Thursday morning, in an appearance on CNBC’s morning news program, Squawk Box.

“Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?” asked Joe Kernen, a host on the show.

“No,” said Pruitt. “I believe that measuring, with precision, human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The best people. The head of the EPA is a blatant liar or delusional. The head of the EPA is denying the reality of climate change from human activity.

This imbecile is a lawyer, he doesn't even have a relevant education for the job.

 

[fskimospy]

This seems particularly appropriate:

 

[Bitek]

Honestly I'm shocked he even admitted global warming is happening. Couldn't find any snowballs to bring to the presser?

Having an argument over what the drivers are counts as progress in a perverse way.

 

[K1052]

He's a head-in-sand fossil energy industry tool and has been for many years. So much so that he's been staffing the EPA with Inhofe (the snowball guy) aides. I actually have more hope for Perry at this point who oversaw a massive expansion of wind power in Texas, which contrary to usual complaints about renewables, didn't skyrocket energy prices.

 

[interchange]

It's sad that the science has become so politicized. Makes it easier for deniers to feel justified.

 

[JockoJohnson]

It's sad that the science has become so politicized. Makes it easier for deniers to feel justified.

It's sad that the science has become so politicized. Makes it easier for government to try and bilk money from the rubes.*

* I am not denying global warming but have no faith in politicians. They will take advantage of the situation and get as much money from us as possible to try and remedy it --- and other pet projects.

 

[PokerGuy]

Stupid question -- “Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?”. What does that even mean, primary control knob on climate? The term "climate" includes a whole lot of things, which ones specifically are they asking about, or are we to assume that CO2 is the "control knob" for everything? Or, does "climate" now only refer to temperature?

 

[PokerGuy]

This seems particularly appropriate:

Oh, of course, because she would have saved us all from certain climate change induced doom! What are we to do now, without the Goron and illary to lead us to salvation??

 

[IronWing]

The science isn't politicized. The politians are bought.

 

[dphantom]

Having read Pruitts statement in toto, I am not seeing any lying or delusion. He urges continued research and debate.

 

[fskimospy]

Having read Pruitts statement in toto, I am not seeing any lying or delusion. He urges continued research and debate.

How is saying that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to the warming not either a lie or a delusion?

 

[fskimospy]

Stupid question -- “Do you believe that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob on climate?”. What does that even mean, primary control knob on climate? The term "climate" includes a whole lot of things, which ones specifically are they asking about, or are we to assume that CO2 is the "control knob" for everything? Or, does "climate" now only refer to temperature?

And what is even their definition of 'is'?! You're totally right, what an impossibly hard question to answer.

Lol.

 

[dphantom]

How is saying that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to the warming not either a lie or a delusion?

Because we are not sure it is. Hence the need for continued research. CO2 is certainly a factor but there is significant uncertainty in its effects.

 

[PokerGuy]

And what is even their definition of 'is'?! You're totally right, what an impossibly hard question to answer.

Lol.

The definition of climate is the prevailing weather conditions. Are weather conditions just temperature now, or are there perhaps other aspects to "climate"? And what exactly is a "control knob for climate"? Does CO2 drive all aspects of "climate"?

 

[fskimospy]

Because we are not sure it is. Hence the need for continued research. CO2 is certainly a factor but there is significant uncertainty in its effects.

There is not scientific uncertainty that CO2 is a primary driver of the warming we have experienced and there has not been any uncertainty for a very long time now. What he said was either ignorant of the science to the point of delusion or a lie.

 

[Aikouka]

What does that even mean, primary control knob on climate?

It's another way of saying "the biggest effect on climate change". Think of it as like the equivalent of a Main Volume knob on some sort of audio device. Sure, those other knobs can affect inputs or various ranges of sound, but that main volume knob makes the biggest change when affected.

 

[kage69]

Same anti-science bullshit from the same GOP establishment. The Swamp to cess poll conversion plods on.

Way to go Trump voters; you're as gullible as you are stupid.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's another way of saying "the biggest effect on climate change". Think of it as like the equivalent of a Main Volume knob on some sort of audio device. Sure, those other knobs can affect inputs or various ranges of sound, but that main volume knob makes the biggest change when affected.

Ok, you can interpret it that way, but that's not what the question was. The question asked about CO2 as the primary control knob for "climate", not "climate change". Further, "climate" encompasses a lot of things other than temperature. Are we to assume that "climate" just refers to temperatures instead?

 

[HomerJS]

The definition of climate is the prevailing weather conditions. Are weather conditions just temperature now, or are there perhaps other aspects to "climate"? And what exactly is a "control knob for climate"? Does CO2 drive all aspects of "climate"?

Climate has been defined for numerous years. Read a book and stop trying to redefine it for yourself.

 

[Paratus]

Because we are not sure it is. Hence the need for continued research. CO2 is certainly a factor but there is significant uncertainty in its effects.

A skeptic is someone who waits for facts, evidence, and analysis before deciding what the truth of a situation is.

A denier is someone who ignores or refuses to acknowledge facts, evidence, and analysis exist to retain their preferred belief.

Don't sit hear and try to play the "we just don't know" card when the facts, evidence, and analysis of mainstream climate change are overwhelming. Feel free to research it yourself. If you truly are the skeptic you like to portray yourself as you'll come to the only
conclusion possible.

 

[Aikouka]

Ok, you can interpret it that way, but that's not what the question was. The question asked about CO2 as the primary control knob for "climate", not "climate change". Further, "climate" encompasses a lot of things other than temperature. Are we to assume that "climate" just refers to temperatures instead?

I'm a bit confused, because that's exactly what the question was. Speaking in a general sense, unless it's broken, a control knob should change whatever attribute its assigned to when adjusted. To be a "primary control knob" would suggest that it has the main/most control over whatever thing we're talking about. So, to ask whether CO2 is the "primary control knob for climate" is asking whether changing CO2 levels has the greatest effect on climate.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Oh, of course, because she would have saved us all from certain climate change induced doom! What are we to do now, without the Goron and illary to lead us to salvation??

well she wouldn't have shit all over the epa, rolled back regulations on coal mining dumping waste into waterways, put some fucktard in charge of the dept of energy, put some vile, vindictive fucktard in charge of the epa, but yea, her emails.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm a bit confused, because that's exactly what the question was. Speaking in a general sense, unless it's broken, a control knob should change whatever attribute its assigned to when adjusted. To be a "primary control knob" would suggest that it has the main/most control over whatever thing we're talking about. So, to ask whether CO2 is the "primary control knob for climate" is asking whether changing CO2 levels has the greatest effect on climate.

If you take the question that way, then the answer is an unequivocal "no". There are many things that influence the climate on the planet earth more than human CO2 output or CO2 levels Solar activity for one. The link between CO2 levels and temperature and other climate variables is established, but CO2 is not by any stretch the "primary control knob for climate". Climate change? Iffy at best, but climate, no.

 

[PokerGuy]

Climate has been defined for numerous years. Read a book and stop trying to redefine it for yourself.

Indeed, it has. I provided the actual definition (from dictionary.com) in my post....which clearly showed the question to be nonsensical. Climate = "the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period". CO2 as the "primary control knob" for everything included in "climate" is nonsense.

 

[feralkid]

The definition of climate is the prevailing weather conditions. Are weather conditions just temperature now, or are there perhaps other aspects to "climate"? And what exactly is a "control knob for climate"? Does CO2 drive all aspects of "climate"?

The atmosphere, dummy.