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

[VirtualLarry]

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.

I was talking with a friend about this very point last night.

IF (as the hypothesis goes) CO2 is the primary driver behind temperature increases in the environment, then we should see those changes start right at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

But he was saying, that the data he was looking at, showed the increases started in the 1950's.

Which was around when the interstate highway system was put in. And we've been paving the earth more and more since then.

It's not entirely inconceivable the the primary driver of global warming, is black pavement.

The action of which is readily observable.

It snowed here, the grass is covered with white, the pavement is all black.

Sunlight hits the pavement, is absorbed, and radiated back into the local atmosphere.

Seems possible to me, and last time I mentioned it on here, someone mentioned that there had been lessr-known papers written about it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I was talking with a friend about this very point last night.

IF (as the hypothesis goes) CO2 is the primary driver behind temperature increases in the environment, then we should see those changes start right at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

But he was saying, that the data he was looking at, showed the increases started in the 1950's.

Global temperatures track really well with CO2 levels. Global temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, tracking rather well with CO2 levels. What happened in the 1950's is that CO2 levels started to increase dramatically. Before the 1950s the effect of CO2 levels were lower and allowed for other factors to play a larger role. As we added more CO2 to the atmosphere its affects started to become larger and larger until around the 1980's its role in global warming became so large that other factors are minor in comparison.

Think of it this way, you have a 5 gallon bucket. Into that bucket you put 3 hoses, one drips 3 drops of a minute into the bucket, one drops 2 drips a minute into the bucket, and the last drops 5 drips a minute of water into the bucket. Now you are trying to figure out how long it will take for that bucket to fill up. The 2 and 3 drops a minute are definitely factors you need to take into consideration, but if you start to turn the 5 drops a minute hose up to 10 drops a minute those other two are lesser factors, turn it to a gallon a minute and they don't really matter at all. At the dawn of the Industrial revolution we started to turn the CO2 emissions up, increasing it slowly. Around 1950 we had turned it up so high the other factors don't matter much anymore.

Which was around when the interstate highway system was put in. And we've been paving the earth more and more since then.

It's not entirely inconceivable the the primary driver of global warming, is black pavement.

The other thing that happened with all those black top roads is that we started driving cars all over them, emitting lots and lots of CO2 while doing so.

 

[Paratus]

I was talking with a friend about this very point last night.

IF (as the hypothesis goes) CO2 is the primary driver behind temperature increases in the environment, then we should see those changes start right at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

But he was saying, that the data he was looking at, showed the increases started in the 1950's.

Which was around when the interstate highway system was put in. And we've been paving the earth more and more since then.

It's not entirely inconceivable the the primary driver of global warming, is black pavement.

The action of which is readily observable.

It snowed here, the grass is covered with white, the pavement is all black.

Sunlight hits the pavement, is absorbed, and radiated back into the local atmosphere.

Seems possible to me, and last time I mentioned it on here, someone mentioned that there had been lessr-known papers written about it.

Global temperatures track really well with CO2 levels. Global temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, tracking rather well with CO2 levels. What happened in the 1950's is that CO2 levels started to increase dramatically. Before the 1950s the effect of CO2 levels were lower and allowed for other factors to play a larger role. As we added more CO2 to the atmosphere its affects started to become larger and larger until around the 1980's its role in global warming became so large that other factors are minor in comparison.

Think of it this way, you have a 5 gallon bucket. Into that bucket you put 3 hoses, one drips 3 drops of a minute into the bucket, one drops 2 drips a minute into the bucket, and the last drops 5 drips a minute of water into the bucket. Now you are trying to figure out how long it will take for that bucket to fill up. The 2 and 3 drops a minute are definitely factors you need to take into consideration, but if you start to turn the 5 drops a minute hose up to 10 drops a minute those other two are lesser factors, turn it to a gallon a minute and they don't really matter at all. At the dawn of the Industrial revolution we started to turn the CO2 emissions up, increasing it slowly. Around 1950 we had turned it up so high the other factors don't matter much anymore.



The other thing that happened with all those black top roads is that we started driving cars all over them, emitting lots and lots of CO2 while doing so.

The other thing that happened was a slight increase in output from the sun starting from the minimum in the 1800's and peaking around 1950-1960. Particulate pollution was also higher in the 40's -70's which had a slight cooling effect. Despite the cooling effect CO2 continued to warm the planet.

 

[soundforbjt]

IIRC I saw where for the first time since data has been recorded, it did not snow in Chicago in January or February. That's scary.

 

[IGBT]

More like deluged with eco-KOOK alarmist mass hysteria propaganda designed to corrupt Public Policy and attack the Tax Payer. Next step in the Climate Hoax social justice is to start prosecuting the eco-KOOKs that are responsible for this Bernie Madoff style hoax of pencil whipped Junk Science reports and cherry picked propaganda news bites and action lines. These perpetrators are responsible for corrupting Public Policy and ripping off the Tax Payer to the tune of billions of dollars.

 

[feralkid]

More like deluged with eco-KOOK alarmist mass hysteria propaganda designed to corrupt Public Policy and attack the Tax Payer. Next step in the Climate Hoax social justice is to start prosecuting the eco-KOOKs that are responsible for this Bernie Madoff style hoax of pencil whipped Junk Science reports and cherry picked propaganda news bites and action lines. These perpetrators are responsible for corrupting Public Policy and ripping off the Tax Payer to the tune of billions of dollars.

I guess it's hard to notice a change in climate when your head is up your ass.



.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

More like deluged with eco-KOOK alarmist mass hysteria propaganda designed to corrupt Public Policy and attack the Tax Payer. Next step in the Climate Hoax social justice is to start prosecuting the eco-KOOKs that are responsible for this Bernie Madoff style hoax of pencil whipped Junk Science reports and cherry picked propaganda news bites and action lines. These perpetrators are responsible for corrupting Public Policy and ripping off the Tax Payer to the tune of billions of dollars.

LOL! I owe myself 10 bux.. I bet myself you'd use the eco-KOOK name, and I won. It was a suckers bet though.
Damn man, you are balls deep in delusion. Hilarious you'd think Phd's in physics and astrophysics and geology, etc would produce 'Junk Science'. Who the fuck do you look to for science, Dr Oz??

 

[sdifox]

LOL! I owe myself 10 bux.. I bet myself you'd use the eco-KOOK name, and I won. It was a suckers bet though.
Damn man, you are balls deep in delusion. Hilarious you'd think Phd's in physics and astrophysics and geology, etc would produce 'Junk Science'. Who the fuck do you look to for science, Dr Oz??

Hey hey you leave I Get Bigly Trump alone!

 

[Grooveriding]

More like deluged with eco-KOOK alarmist mass hysteria propaganda designed to corrupt Public Policy and attack the Tax Payer. Next step in the Climate Hoax social justice is to start prosecuting the eco-KOOKs that are responsible for this Bernie Madoff style hoax of pencil whipped Junk Science reports and cherry picked propaganda news bites and action lines. These perpetrators are responsible for corrupting Public Policy and ripping off the Tax Payer to the tune of billions of dollars.

IGBT enters the thread:

 

[Paratus]

Hey hey you leave I Get Bigly Trump alone!

God damn. I was about to post the same acronym. 😀


Great minds and all that.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm shocked the lazy ignorant billionaire appointed to a position by Trump would not know everything there is to know about his job.

Next you'll be telling me the Secretary of Education has never been a teacher or even attended public school!

 

[Jaskalas]

IF (as the hypothesis goes) CO2 is the primary driver behind temperature increases in the environment, then we should see those changes start right at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

But he was saying, that the data he was looking at, showed the increases started in the 1950's.

Global industry / CO2 emissions surely skyrocketed in the post war era.
What's so hard about seeing that we finally ramped up to surpass meaningful global emissions by 1950s?

 

[flexy]

Yup, 1984 reference again....

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency....is not really much interested in global warming/climate change....
I am waiting until you get a "Ministry of Love"...you seem to be headed the right way....

 

[cytg111]

There is too many of us to sustain here.

1. Either get our shit under control, stop burning fossils and stop the agricultural footprint (stop the beef damnit)
OR
2. There needs to be less of us. Who has nukes? (no joke, this *will* lead to war)

 

[kage69]

IGBT enters the thread:

Hehehe.

Eco kooks! Soros! Liberals! It's like listening to Alex Jones fall down the stairs, and every bit as scientifically relevant. Poor troll, it must suck to have so many years of "input" put into summary with one pic. I hope his personal life isn't as pathetic, I really do.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So what does an actual climate scientist have to say about Scott Pruitt's interview? That he is basically right of course.

"
What Scott Pruitt actually said

Listen to what Scott Pruitt actually said on CNBC and then compare it to the portrayal in the media. Here is the key text:

I think 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. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

Can you square what Pruitt actually said with the distorted quotes and headlines about this? I can’t.

I think that these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct:

I think 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"

We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/11/scott-pruitts-statement-on-climate-change/#more-22891




Of course this is actually a credentialed climate scientist, not a political scientist or a 10 cent internet troll, but you can always believe who you want.

 

[Commodus]

So what does an actual climate scientist have to say about Scott Pruitt's interview? That he is basically right of course.

"
What Scott Pruitt actually said

Listen to what Scott Pruitt actually said on CNBC and then compare it to the portrayal in the media. Here is the key text:

I think 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. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

Can you square what Pruitt actually said with the distorted quotes and headlines about this? I can’t.

I think that these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct:

I think 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"

We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/11/scott-pruitts-statement-on-climate-change/#more-22891




Of course this is actually a credentialed climate scientist, not a political scientist or a 10 cent internet troll, but you can always believe who you want.

The problem is, she's also dancing around one important factor: Pruitt is in deep with the fossil fuel industry, going so far as to let them dictate his policy at times.

He didn't make that "gee, not sure" statement because he's taking a nuanced approach to climate science. It's because his goal is to cast doubt on the validity of human-made climate change so that he can please the energy companies paying him off (he's particularly close to Devon Energy).

 

[Paratus]

So what does an actual climate scientist have to say about Scott Pruitt's interview? That he is basically right of course.

"
What Scott Pruitt actually said

Listen to what Scott Pruitt actually said on CNBC and then compare it to the portrayal in the media. Here is the key text:

I think 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. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

Can you square what Pruitt actually said with the distorted quotes and headlines about this? I can’t.

I think that these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct:

I think 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"

We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/11/scott-pruitts-statement-on-climate-change/#more-22891




Of course this is actually a credentialed climate scientist, not a political scientist or a 10 cent internet troll, but you can always believe who you want.

What's fun about this is watching the deniers have to flip flop on global warming.

Oh it's not happening! The Pause! The Pause! - shit no one believes this

It's happening but it's natural. Natural I tell you! - shit no one who matters is buying this.

Ok how about we are causing it but who knows how much.

Anyway back on Jan 6th Curry was on Fox News and she had this to say.

"Yes it’s warming and yes humans contribute to it. Everybody agrees with that, and I’m in the 98 percent [of scientists who agree]

Do you agree with her Taj. That humans contribute to global warming?

 

[fskimospy]

So what does an actual climate scientist have to say about Scott Pruitt's interview? That he is basically right of course.

"
What Scott Pruitt actually said

Listen to what Scott Pruitt actually said on CNBC and then compare it to the portrayal in the media. Here is the key text:

I think 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. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

Can you square what Pruitt actually said with the distorted quotes and headlines about this? I can’t.

I think that these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct:

I think 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"

We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/11/scott-pruitts-statement-on-climate-change/#more-22891

Of course this is actually a credentialed climate scientist, not a political scientist or a 10 cent internet troll, but you can always believe who you want.

Yes, he said he would not agree that it is a primary contributor to the warming we have seen. This is demonstrably at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What's fun about this is watching the deniers have to flip flop on global warming.

Oh it's not happening! The Pause! The Pause! - shit no one believes this

It's happening but it's natural. Natural I tell you! - shit no one who matters is buying this.

Ok how about we are causing it but who knows how much.

Anyway back on Jan 6th Curry was on Fox News and she had this to say.



Do you agree with her Taj. That humans contribute to global warming?

Yes i do.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yes, he said he would not agree that it is a primary contributor to the warming we have seen. This is demonstrably at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue.

It's actually not. I'll decide to agree with Dr. Curry who's appeared before Congress 4 times, twice for the Democrats and twice for the Republicans

 

[Paratus]

It's actually not. I'll decide to agree with Dr. Curry who's appeared before Congress 4 times, twice for the Democrats and twice for the Republicans

So what does Dr Curry who's appeared before congress say specifically is the primary cause?

 

[fskimospy]

So what does Dr Curry who's appeared before congress say specifically is the primary cause?

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

 

[fskimospy]

It's actually not. I'll decide to agree with Dr. Curry who's appeared before Congress 4 times, twice for the Democrats and twice for the Republicans

Got it, you want to base your opinion of whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of the warming we've seen on the stated opinions of professional climatologists. Is this correct?

Presumably if the opinion of one was good enough for you to say it was not a primary cause if you heard the opinion of tens or even hundreds of climatologists that said it was you would change your opinion and agree with them. Is that correct? If not, why?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Got it, you want to base your opinion of whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of the warming we've seen on the stated opinions of professional climatologists. Is this correct?

Presumably if the opinion of one was good enough for you to say it was not a primary cause if you heard the opinion of tens or even hundreds of climatologists that said it was you would change your opinion and agree with them. Is that correct? If not, why?

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.