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

[fskimospy]

Even if CO2 wasn't a factor (and I'm not saying that's the case), the geopolitical stage is set in large part by those who control fossil fuels. The whole middle east with opec has dictated our behaviors by virtue of resources. It would be far better to develop sources of power which do not depend on outside sources like solar.

Carter understood this, but Regan killed it. Trump will be as bad or worse I fear.

The good news is that we are already doing this and it seems like the renewable train is unstoppable regardless of government influence. That being said, the idea that the head of the EPA is still trying to deny objective scientific reality is insane.

I don't even know what to say about this administration anymore. It is the first one that feels no need to confirm statements or policy to reality. This is probably a big political advantage but it is also a large 'functioning society' disadvantage.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Remember it doesn't even have to be THE primary cause, Pruitt said it wasn't A primary cause.

The fact remains that there are eminent climate scientists that agree with Scott Pruitt about the science of global warming. The whole point of this thread is basically bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

The fact remains that there are eminent climate scientists that agree with Scott Pruitt about the science of global warming. The whole point of this thread is basically bullshit.

You didn't answer my question.

You clearly accept the statements of climate scientists so I'm happy we can come to a mutual understanding. Now that we have both accepted the authority of climate scientists I assume we can both come to an agreement based on their ideas.

You didn't answer my question before but I assume due to your respect for climate scientists you are excited to endorse their views. Is that the case?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The fact remains that there are eminent climate scientists that agree with Scott Pruitt about the science of global warming. The whole point of this thread is basically bullshit.

The fact remains that there are eminent climate scientists that agree with Scott Pruitt about the science of global warming. The whole point of this thread is basically bullshit.

There are scientists who believe the world is 6k years old. There aren't many of them, but they exist. I don't find that they exist weighs heavily in favor of young earth creationists. Likewise for Pruitts crowd.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are scientists who believe the world is 6k years old. There aren't many of them, but they exist. I don't find that they exist weighs heavily in favor of young earth creationists. Likewise for Pruitts crowd.

It is the Devil's job to deceive. True believers are well trained to ward off such deception. Their faith is an act of profound spiritual will.. There is no greater act for the glory to the ism of whatever it might be than toto stand publicly in defiance. By this means do we recognize our saints. Soldiers of the light and all that to whom great respect is rewarded. They need that Holiness to ward off their unconscious feelings of self hate. It is the greatest way to feel self important.

 

[jman19]

There are scientists who believe the world is 6k years old. There aren't many of them, but they exist. I don't find that they exist weighs heavily in favor of young earth creationists. Likewise for Pruitts crowd.

It doesn't take much evidence for people to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true. Taj is the perfect example of that line of thought.

 

[Grooveriding]

In another thread Comrade Taj was trying to defend Trump's claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax, I think it's clear who is doing his thinking for him. To someone in reality it would be an alarm bell to be clinging to one hack to deny reality. If we started filling this thread with names of scientists in the related fields who are of the position the climate is changing at an alarming rate due to our activity, we'd have a huge thread with thousands of names.

 

[fskimospy]

There are scientists who believe the world is 6k years old. There aren't many of them, but they exist. I don't find that they exist weighs heavily in favor of young earth creationists. Likewise for Pruitts crowd.

Once you understand it's football for him it all makes sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't take much evidence for people to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true. Taj is the perfect example of that line of thought.

But why, but why but why???

 

[Paratus]

The fact remains that there are eminent climate scientists that agree with Scott Pruitt about the science of global warming. The whole point of this thread is basically bullshit.

Correction you have provide evidence of A climate scientist that agrees with him. As she hasn't published peer reviewed science in a major journal in over a decade because she spends most of her time on Fox, "eminent" is called into question as well.

 

[Paratus]

In another thread Comrade Taj was trying to defend Trump's claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax, I think it's clear who is doing his thinking for him. To someone in reality it would be an alarm bell to be clinging to one hack to deny reality. If we started filling this thread with names of scientists in the related fields who are of the position the climate is changing at an alarming rate due to our activity, we'd have a huge thread with thousands of names.

That's why I wanted him on record agreeing that humans are a cause of global warming so next time he claims it's a hoax we can link him is own words.

(I understand he's pulling the, "humans are a tiny insignificant part of warming", but hey it's two rungs closer to reality than it's not happening. )

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That's why I wanted him on record agreeing that humans are a cause of global warming so next time he claims it's a hoax we can link him is own words.

(I understand he's pulling the, "humans are a tiny insignificant part of warming", but hey it's two rungs closer to reality than it's not happening. )

I've never claimed here or anywhere else that global warming is a Chinese or any other kind of hoax. It's a fact of science and there's also no doubt that humans are a contributing cause to it. How much we contribute and what can be done about it and how much it will cost and whether it's worth the cost is what is uncertain.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Correction you have provide evidence of A climate scientist that agrees with him. As she hasn't published peer reviewed science in a major journal in over a decade because she spends most of her time on Fox, "eminent" is called into question as well.

No, she's appeared as an expert 4 times in Congress for both Democrats and Republicans. Dr. Curry knows far more about Climate science that you do.............. unless you count cutting and pasting for various websites knowledge. Also Dr. Lindzen and others.

 

[fskimospy]

No, she's appeared as an expert 4 times in Congress for both Democrats and Republicans. Dr. Curry knows far more about Climate science that you do.............. unless you count cutting and pasting for various websites knowledge. Also Dr. Lindzen and others.

So again, assuming you are someone who is willing to take the word of 'people who know far more about climate science than you do' I assume that means if you found a majority of climate scientists thought CO2 was a primary cause of the warming we have seen you would accept it.

Is this true? If not, why?

 

[Moonbeam]

I've never claimed here or anywhere else that global warming is a Chinese or any other kind of hoax. It's a fact of science and there's also no doubt that humans are a contributing cause to it. How much we contribute and what can be done about it and how much it will cost and whether it's worth the cost is what is uncertain.

This sounds like a very solid and reasonable argument for somebody to make. A person in doubt about the answers takes a slow down and get more facts approach. The fear being that climate hype might run us off a debt cliff or freeze our asses off in winter for nothing. The only problem with the argument is that it is the consensus of scientists that it is wrong, that there is real and immediate danger on a global scale and that we need to act. Denialists protect themselves from emotional anxiety and guilt by pushing this knowledge away. There are many liberals who have the same reaction to vaccines. They don't want to see they risk others by being willing to let other parents vaccinate their kids and take the risk so their kids can live vaccine free in a protected population. You don't really want to be one of them or you shouldn't.

 

[agent00f]

This sounds like a very solid and reasonable argument for somebody to make. A person in doubt about the answers takes a slow down and get more facts approach. The fear being that climate hype might run us off a debt cliff or freeze our asses off in winter for nothing. The only problem with the argument is that it is the consensus of scientists that it is wrong, that there is real and immediate danger on a global scale and that we need to act. Denialists protect themselves from emotional anxiety and guilt by pushing this knowledge away. There are many liberals who have the same reaction to vaccines. They don't want to see they risk others by being willing to let other parents vaccinate their kids and take the risk so their kids can live vaccine free in a protected population. You don't really want to be one of them or you shouldn't.

Before the enlightenment or science age specifically, the truth wasn't seen as fungible with physical reality, but rather a matter of belief/faith. So there's no reason to believe humans naturally prioritize the former association, given it's a recently learned behavior. There's also no reason to believe everyone is learned in that regard, especially those ideologically committed not to.

 

[twjr]

While I don't agree with the answer Pruitt gave I also think it was a fairly broad question. At times I call myself an environmental scientist and I would probably answer 'no' to that question. The sun, oceanic currents and plate tectonics have a far greater impact on global climate over a geologic timescale than CO2 does. Sure at the timescale we humans care about our CO2 is probably an issue though.

Had the question been something specific like "Is the warming of the atmosphere that has been observed since the industrial revolution a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?" it would have been hard to say no.

Anyway it matters little what he said. The bloke is in bed with the oil and gas industry and is now in charge of your environmental regulatory body. Fewer better examples of a fox in charge of a henhouse. It would be humorous if there weren't global implications.

 

[fskimospy]

While I don't agree with the answer Pruitt gave I also think it was a fairly broad question. At times I call myself an environmental scientist and I would probably answer 'no' to that question. The sun, oceanic currents and plate tectonics have a far greater impact on global climate over a geologic timescale than CO2 does. Sure at the timescale we humans care about our CO2 is probably an issue though.

Had the question been something specific like "Is the warming of the atmosphere that has been observed since the industrial revolution a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions?" it would have been hard to say no.

Anyway it matters little what he said. The bloke is in bed with the oil and gas industry and is now in charge of your environmental regulatory body. Fewer better examples of a fox in charge of a henhouse. It would be humorous if there weren't global implications.

If you look back at what he said he basically said no to the question you said it would be hard to say no to.

“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.”

It's also pretty obvious what the questioner was asking about too, so had he said 'No, the sun is the primary control knob on climate' he would have been correct, but in a pedantic, technical way. Everyone here knows she was talking about climate change and it's obvious he understood that too from the answer he gave.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Only in Liberal/Authoritarianville is the question "How much is it going to cost us?" and "What is it going to do to solve a problem?" forbidden. The whole Paris Climate Accord is just the 21st centuries form of throwing virgins into a volcano to placate the Global Warming Gods because a consensus of witchdoctors/priests claim it's the only way! So how much is the Paris Climate Accord going to cost the United States? What effect is it going to have in the next 25 years? Unless those questions are answered the new head of the EPA is right to question some actions.

This sounds like a very solid and reasonable argument for somebody to make. A person in doubt about the answers takes a slow down and get more facts approach. The fear being that climate hype might run us off a debt cliff or freeze our asses off in winter for nothing. The only problem with the argument is that it is the consensus of scientists that it is wrong, that there is real and immediate danger on a global scale and that we need to act. Denialists protect themselves from emotional anxiety and guilt by pushing this knowledge away. There are many liberals who have the same reaction to vaccines. They don't want to see they risk others by being willing to let other parents vaccinate their kids and take the risk so their kids can live vaccine free in a protected population. You don't really want to be one of them or you shouldn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

Before the enlightenment or science age specifically, the truth wasn't seen as fungible with physical reality, but rather a matter of belief/faith. So there's no reason to believe humans naturally prioritize the former association, given it's a recently learned behavior. There's also no reason to believe everyone is learned in that regard, especially those ideologically committed not to.

This is tautologically self evident.


What needs understanding is what ideological commitment really is. How does it come into being.

 

[Moonbeam]

Only in Liberal/Authoritarianville is the question "How much is it going to cost us?" and "What is it going to do to solve a problem?" forbidden. The whole Paris Climate Accord is just the 21st centuries form of throwing virgins into a volcano to placate the Global Warming Gods because a consensus of witchdoctors/priests claim it's the only way! So how much is the Paris Climate Accord going to cost the United States? What effect is it going to have in the next 25 years? Unless those questions are answered the new head of the EPA is right to question some actions.

This is you projecting your conservative brain defect on liberals. Another scientifically inconvenient fact for conservatives other than man mad pending climate disaster is the fact that it is conservatives more than liberals who deny reality. There are more liberals who are willing to rationally look at the costs and consequences of acting vs inaction than conservatives who are out to lunch in their fear based religious conviction that liberals are out to destroy the nation via bankruptcy. You doubtlessly have an enlarged right amygdala that heightens the sense that you live in constant danger and the wealth from the energy sector that stand to lose in a real effort to combat global CO2 emissions happily feed that fear by tickling it with paid for talk of monsters under your bed. Try not to be led around like a bull with a ring in its nose. You will definitely feel more manly. Here is what the liberal view will look like when you walk in our shoes.

A young conservative bull, anxious about his sexual prowess, saw a field of cows some way down a hill. He turned to his bull companion who happened to be a liberal and said, drool running down his lips, Let's run down there and do one of those cows. Let's walk down and do them all, said his friend.

There is just no end to the benefits of rational thinking.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/13/scott-pruitt-is-absolutely-right-about-carbon-dioxide/

"Separate Data from Interpretation, Please
NPR, for example, accused Pruitt of questioning “basic facts about climate change.” But the problem with global warming alarmists getting on their science high horse is that they don’t really know the science all that well, or how to talk about it.

For example, NPR goes on to say: “The view that CO2 is a major heat-trapping gas is supported by reams of data, including data collected by government agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” Er, which data would that be? Carbon dioxide is certainly known to be a greenhouse gas, but nobody needed NASA or NOAA to tell them that. (More on this in a moment.) Presumably NPR thinks there is data which shows that carbon dioxide is primarily responsible for recent increases in global temperatures. But “data” can’t show that. Any assertion of cause and effect in a complex system like the climate, where there are hundreds of competing variables, is someone’s interpretation of the data.


So when people say they know carbon dioxide is driving global warming because of “data,” they reveal that they don’t know what they’re talking about. The same thing is true if they say they know it because of “basic science.” "

 

[Grooveriding]

Nice source, Comarde Taj! 5 Rubles for that post.

 

[fskimospy]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/13/scott-pruitt-is-absolutely-right-about-carbon-dioxide/

"Separate Data from Interpretation, Please
NPR, for example, accused Pruitt of questioning “basic facts about climate change.” But the problem with global warming alarmists getting on their science high horse is that they don’t really know the science all that well, or how to talk about it.

For example, NPR goes on to say: “The view that CO2 is a major heat-trapping gas is supported by reams of data, including data collected by government agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” Er, which data would that be? Carbon dioxide is certainly known to be a greenhouse gas, but nobody needed NASA or NOAA to tell them that. (More on this in a moment.) Presumably NPR thinks there is data which shows that carbon dioxide is primarily responsible for recent increases in global temperatures. But “data” can’t show that. Any assertion of cause and effect in a complex system like the climate, where there are hundreds of competing variables, is someone’s interpretation of the data.

So when people say they know carbon dioxide is driving global warming because of “data,” they reveal that they don’t know what they’re talking about. The same thing is true if they say they know it because of “basic science.” "

This has to be one of the most ineptly written articles about science I have ever seen. Either that or this guy is a huge liar. The basic mistakes are so numerous it's hard to know where to start:

First, he takes issue with NPR saying 'the view that CO2 is a major heat-trapping gas is supported by reams of data'. He then claims that the data can't show that CO2 is primarily responsible for the increases in temperature that we've seen, which is an obviously false statement for anyone who understands the scientific method unless you're part of the 'it's impossible to ever truly know anything' school of thought. It doesn't matter that people end up interpreting the data one way or another, the only thing that matters is if the data supports one view or another and of course the data can show that view is most likely the correct one, using data to test hypotheses is why we collect it, after all. Strike one.

Second, he deliberately tries to distort what Pruitt SAID with what he was ASKED. It doesn't work that way. Strike two.

Later he tries to appeal to the idea that this science is not settled because there are in fact a few climatologists that disagree. This is pedantic nonsense. The consensus on global warming is about as strong as anything you ever get in science. To try and say Pruitt wasn't endorsing an extreme fringe view is nonsense. Strike three. This is why smart people don't try and support their scientific arguments with opinion pieces by non-scientists from extreme right wing websites. It is frankly hilarious to watch these idiots tie themselves up into knots to find a way in which Pruitt isn't denying science. It might work for preaching to the converted, but nobody else is so easily duped.

By the way, you never did answer my question. Since you say that you get your opinion from Judith Curry because she's a climatologist, presumably if you found out many, many, many more climatologists had a different opinion you would alter yours to conform with that. Is that correct? If not, why?

 

[hal2kilo]

The good news is that we are already doing this and it seems like the renewable train is unstoppable regardless of government influence. That being said, the idea that the head of the EPA is still trying to deny objective scientific reality is insane.

I don't even know what to say about this administration anymore. It is the first one that feels no need to confirm statements or policy to reality. This is probably a big political advantage but it is also a large 'functioning society' disadvantage.

As much a I cry for what's being done to the EPA, the evaporation of the State Dept. should be everyone's number one concern. This has Bannon written all over it.