EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Says Carbon Dioxide Is Not a ‘Primary Contributor’ to Global Warming

I love this. NASA and NOAA have been politicized for the last 18 years at the behest of the sitting Globalist in chief of the moment.
The findings of these fake flakes have been debunked for the last 15 years by various independent scientists. Having pointed out how parts of the deliberate fear mongering were from a hiking magazine and other various skullduggery among the self appointed "Climatologists". For which there was never a degree program in the whole world, until I pointed it out 6 years ago on this very forum.

 

So what is the solution? Regulate production of the gas? Its a technology driven, price sensitive topic, you can't just regulate that across the board. And its not just China, do you think a country like Norway would be willing to curb their oil production?

 

Well golly. When the entire makeup of the atmosphere of planet earth even become remotely like that of Venus, you might have a point. As in CO2 makes up a predicted 96.7% of it's atmosphere. It also have sulphuric acid, and CO. NO, and other variations. Given the logic of the current regime of science fanciers for AGW, the CO2 wouldn't be the driver, it would more likely be some other trace element that varies over time, as CO2 does in our atmosphere. It's preposterous to assert that the two planets are like, or that because Mercury doesn't have it's own developed atmosphere that it's temperature comparison to Venus is in any way appropriate.

 

Actually that increase is missing, one of the cornerstones of the CO2 centric hypothesis.

 

The argument has been made. It is then summarily suppressed within those agencies. Ever wonder why that is? Likely not.

 

Science is basically a belief system until an hypothesis is verified through experimentation. The current AGW theory is an unverifiable hypothesis and why you see everything blamed on it. It is based on unverified models. There are plenty of other hypothesis but they do not get the grant money because they are outside of the current politicized science.

 

They may have more people living in dirt poor squaller, but they are still the top polluter overall.

Such number trickery is just there to make the USA look bad, as you can see USA total share of the world pollution is half what China's is, but if you go by Per Capita then it looks like the USA is over twice as bad as China.

(Wikipedia)List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

China, % CO2 emissions: 29.51%
Emission per capita (t) in 2015[3]: 7.7

United States, % CO2 emissions: 14.34%
Emission per capita (t) in 2015: 16.1

European Union, % CO2 emissions: 9.62%
Emission per capita (t) in 2015: 6.9

India, % CO2 emissions: 6.81%
Emission per capita (t) in 2015: 1.9

Russia, % CO2 emissions: 4.88%
Emission per capita (t) in 2015: 12.3

 

What an incredibly lazy argument. You just get to dismiss the entirety of NASA (the only organization to land multiple robots safely on Mars) and NOAA (the organization whose raw data is relied upon by ships and meterologists all over the world, every day) and the overwhelming percentage of relevant experts in the field.

Because they were ALL "debunked" by "independent" scientists.

 

There are a massive list of solutions - all of which need to pursued. Reducing CO2 production, promoting alternative energy sources, pursuing carbon capture technology, battery technology, working to reduce the impacts of global warming, etc. etc.

And yes, I believe Norway would be willing to curb their oil production.

 

Got any proof of that claim? No? Didn't think so. Besides, I don't imagine you would understand why scientists would summarily dismiss someone saying, "Global warming can't be caused by CO2 because you can't prove that CO2 causes all of the Global Warming."

 

What's it like 20% of their GDP? The county is already starting to feel the effects of negative growth.

All of what you list is happening, right now. We have made massive progress since the 60s,70s, and 80s. I don't believe that to be due totally to our laws. Once we begin to hit the price vs. benefit horizon people, begin to adopt the new technologies. Government's cant force these kinds of things onto people, it works best when it happens naturally people benefit the most that way.

 

That is fundamentally false. AGW makes a whole host of predictions that are being verified: For starters, we have the average global temperature rising, the acidification of the oceans, the increasing severity of storms, the rising sea levels, and the melting of glaciers.

 

That's because each person in the United States, on average, pollutes a lot more than the average person in China.

 

This makes me laugh just a little. it's an attempt to be both snarky and is an unintentional repudiation of your own commentary. So, I laugh, just a little. Thanks,.

 

Yes, but that's because the people in China are living in poverty. Get out of the cities and it's pretty much the stone age.

 

The government is a very significant and necessary driver behind adjusting the cost v benefit analysis. They are why we don't have rivers on fire anymore, acid rain is not a major problem in the United States, and the hole in the ozone layer has largely been fixed.

Humans are selfish. We don't naturally want to clean the environment, especially when we are not the only ones contributing to that pollution.

 

We have oodles of documented email between several of the research centers in East Anglia, The US, as well as several of the principles at both NOAA and now NASA that explicitly say exactly what I've said. As in there is, and has been a concerted politically driven suppression of counter or critical study produced within those agencies, and a collusion to ensure that said study never reaches the pages of scientific journals. It's the wonder of the internet, irrepudiable email trails.

 

So what you're saying is that you found a few sentences out of tens of thousands of emails that, based on your simplistic understanding, confirmed your bias and thus, you don't need to analyze anything said since then?

Got it.

 

LOL ... the right-wing clown has ZERO street cred on the issue.

Put his opinion where it belongs ... in the local garbage truck...

 

So? Temperature can be rising for many reasons. The acidification of oceans isn't even measurable outside the uncertainty range and in fact varies greatly daily and monthly. There is no evidence of increasing severity of storms and glaciers shrunk and grew long before SUVs came along. I fear you have fallen for the hype without ever checking out any of the alarmist claims.

 

I know that the links are hard to discern because they don't really change the color that much, but I provided links to sources for each and every one of those predictions currently being verified.

But you'll excuse me from being convinced by some anonymous poster online for why I shouldn't listen to actual scientists, especially when they summarize their reason for dismissing the sources because they could "happen for many reasons."

 

That's total BS even the most hardcore free market conservative understands the benefits to a clean environment. They understand that pollution is killing they rivers they like to fish in. Those things in the statement above it occurred because the effects of what we were doing weren't well known. Not because people didn't care.

Human greed is the MOST significant driver, in bringing better technology and lower costs. There is no way you actually believe people like Elon Musk are altruists. Government subsidies in this is a waste of resources. Time and time again they have been shown to back the wrong horse. They aren't in it to address a need, they are in to retain power and control.

 

What I am describing is a very classic example of collective action. It is well known. I don't want to retype it out, but look at the farmer-pond scenario that I describe in post #24.

Yes, hardcore conservatives understand the benefit of a clean environment. But it is in your best interest, as a consumer and producer, to let everyone else sacrifice their productivity and profit in order to clean that environment while you keep working.

 

I read it. I also think the EPA does have a place in this. There are also many places where I just don't think they do.

If we want to get back on topic for instance, saying a coal plant can only expel so much CO2 or even none at all is OK. I think it's think its a good thing. Labeling it as a pollutant is one of those things that I fear can lead to massive overreach.

 

Which scientists, the ones you agree with or the ones you don't?