New EPA head Scott Pruitt rejects CO2 as primary cause of global warming

[skookerasbil]

What a time for my PHOTOBUCKET to be down!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Meaningless drivel! Are you insane? Or just sitting there with your had up your ass, like most rightwingnuts.

You were told about posting selfies...

What? You don't recognize your own photo, boober? You really are losing it!

...your life could be so much better if you could realize that you don't have to be intimidated and angry with everyone who disagrees with you.

ROTFLMFAO......you actually imagine that a feeble minded ignorant retard like yourself is somehow "intimidating"? LOLOLOLOLLOL....that is hilarious! A blind, deaf and dumb, paraplegic Cub Scout could intimidate you into the ground!

Your potty mouth shows just where your head is...

Grow up.

 

[RollingThunder]

I take it that you are aware that Global Warming frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2.

Yes. I take it you're aware that bringing up that red herring doesn't reflect well on your ability to use logic. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions at the present time are different, and conditions are different.

How is the FACT that Global Warming has frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2 when the discussion is about CO2...and Global Warming a red herring?

He just told you that and you are apparently too stupid to even realize that he did that, let alone understand why your mostly bogus claim is meaningless....and an attempted irrelevant 'red herring'.

In the first place, as Mamooth just told you....
"The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions at the present time are different, and conditions are different."
Or, in other words, just because something, like long, relatively slow global warming, happened in the distant past supposedly because of your un-named natural causes other than CO2, that supposed fact would not, even if true, in any way mean that something somewhat similar, like abrupt and very rapid global warming, isn't happening now because of the changes in the natural world that humans have created...like the 46% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Anymore than the fact the forest fires were all started naturally for hundreds of millions of years, by lightning strikes or volcanoes or whatever, in any way means that human couldn't possibly be starting them now. Your lack of logic is probably a natural result of your extremely obvious denier cult ignorance and stupidity.

Secondly, The actual science currently shows that increases in CO2 preceded and caused the major part of the warming that ended the last period of heavy glaciation about 11,000 years ago, and probably a number of times earlier at the endings of other periods of heavy glaciation during this two and half million year long actual, official Ice Age that the Earth has technically been in all that time....until now.

Are you aware that other planets in our Solar System are warming? SUV's?

Are you aware the sun is cooling, and that we thus know with 100% certainty the warming is not caused by solar changes?

Probably not, as apparently your political cult didn't see fit to inform you of that. They withheld information from you, a form of dishonesty. Why would they do that, do you think?

And why do you ask so many irrelevant questions? Is that how your [you] were trained to deflect from the actual topic?

I said the other planets in our solar system are warming.

And that was mostly wrong....and either reflective of your deep ignorance and the misinformation you've been fed, or just a stupid lie.

Here's what Mamooth also just told you right before you stupidly made the same fraudulent claim once again....
"Are you aware the sun is cooling, and that we thus know with 100% certainty that any warming is not caused by solar changes?"

What the science actually says in the real world....

"There are three fundamental flaws in the 'other planets are warming' argument. Not all planets in the solar system are warming. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950 and in fact has shown a slight cooling trend in recent decades. There are [non-solar] explanations for why other planets are warming.

The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

That begs the question - what is causing warming on other planets? With the exception of Pluto, climate change on other planets are fairly understood:

• Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007). More on Mars...
• Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer. More on Neptune...
• Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).
• Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006). More on Jupiter...
• Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).

(source - What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system)

Where did I mention the Sun warming or cooling? Aren't those examples your way of a diversion?

You didn't, you silly cretin, because the scientifically observed slight cooling of the sun's energy is the rebuttal to your bogus bullcrap denier cult myth about the sun causing the current warming on the Earth, as Mamooth just told you. Too bad you're too brainwashed to even look at the facts even when they are right in your face.

How is man's supposed increase in CO2 increasing the temperature of the other planets in our Solar System?

Except that, in reality, the large majority of the other planets aren't actually warming....except in the crackpot myths of your delusional anti-science cult of reality denial....so your clueless 'question' is just more evidence of your ignorance and gullibility.

 

[Crick]

I take it that you are aware that Global Warming frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2.

Yes. I take it you're aware that bringing up that red herring doesn't reflect well on your ability to use logic. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions at the present time are different, and conditions are different.

Are you aware that other planets in our Solar System are warming? SUV's?

Are you aware the sun is cooling, and that we thus know with 100% certainty the warming is not caused by solar changes?

Probably not, as apparently your political cult didn't see fit to inform you of that. They withheld information from you, a form of dishonesty. Why would they do that, do you think?

And why do you ask so many irrelevant questions? Is that how your [you] were trained to deflect from the actual topic?

How is the FACT that Global Warming has frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2 when the discussion is about CO2...and Global Warming a red herring?

I said the other planets in our solar system are warming. Where did I mention the Sun warming or cooling? Aren't those examples your way of a diversion?

How is man's supposed increase in CO2 increasing the temperature of the other planets in our Solar System?

1) What happened in the past (warming leading to CO2 increases) does not prevent the different chain of event that is happening today (CO2 increases leading to warming). CO2 increases when it warms because the its solubility in liquids - and that of all gases - DEcreases with INcreasing temperature. Think of the differences opening a warm soda and a cold soda. On the other hand, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and reemits bands of IR radiation that would normally escape straight to space. By slowing down that escape, it increases the energy content of the Earth's atmosphere and thus its temperature. One really has nothing to do with the other. Got it?

2) The only way the temperature of the other planets could be changing is for some large scale event to be changing them: atmospheric changes such as the Earth is undergoing, asteroid collisions, massive volcanism, albedo changes, etc. Since nothing like that is happening on ALL the planets, the only thing left would be their common energy source, the sun. However, the sun has been cooling of late. It would not be making the planets warm up, it is going to allow them to cool. The Earth warming up is NOT part of a Solar System-wide event.

3) No one meant to suggest that human Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are warming other planets. You have misunderstood something - though that may not be your fault at all.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

....Pruitt needs to explain what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs and why the increase in CO2 seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution wouldn't also increase absorbed energy.

That's why there is global warming on Uranus.

Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly: it is radiating less heat. Scientists can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the myths of your crackpot cult of reality denial that say that the sun is causing a rise in temperatures all over the solar system.

I Lived Near Your Hero and Know What Drove Him to the Dark Side

My bad. I thought there was a space between Rolling and Thunder in your username, or else I would never have had to read your Unabomber screed. Which brings up the question (not the Diploma Dumbos' "Which begs the question"), Who is Rolling Thunder?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

My God........talk about clueless people in this forum. I cant believe what Im reading and over the years, Ive read a lot of incoherent stuff here.

But this stuff............"Pruitt needs to explain himself on............"


YOU


FUCKING


MORONS.............


..........HE


DOESNT


HAVE


TO


EXPLAIN


DICK




..........holy fuck.........these people still, after months, don't realize they have lost!

You Don't Like It? Then I'll Do It Twice as Much.

We should distrust politicians who pretend to be intimidated by the opposition's reaction, especially by "world opinion." They are revealing what side they are really on when they say, "We can't do that or say that; the media will be all over us." That includes weak Trump supporters who say they wish he wouldn't tweet so many provocative things. Myself, I get a good laugh every time the jurinalists have a conniption fit.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I take it that you are aware that Global Warming frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2.

Yes. I take it you're aware that bringing up that red herring doesn't reflect well on your ability to use logic. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions at the present time are different, and conditions are different.

Are you aware that other planets in our Solar System are warming? SUV's?

Are you aware the sun is cooling, and that we thus know with 100% certainty the warming is not caused by solar changes?

Probably not, as apparently your political cult didn't see fit to inform you of that. They withheld information from you, a form of dishonesty. Why would they do that, do you think?

And why do you ask so many irrelevant questions? Is that how your [you] were trained to deflect from the actual topic?

How is the FACT that Global Warming has frequently PRECEEDED increases in CO2 when the discussion is about CO2...and Global Warming a red herring?

I said the other planets in our solar system are warming. Where did I mention the Sun warming or cooling? Aren't those examples your way of a diversion?

How is man's supposed increase in CO2 increasing the temperature of the other planets in our Solar System?

1) What happened in the past (warming leading to CO2 increases) does not prevent the different chain of event that is happening today (CO2 increases leading to warming). CO2 increases when it warms because the its solubility in liquids - and that of all gases - DEcreases with INcreasing temperature. Think of the differences opening a warm soda and a cold soda. On the other hand, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and reemits bands of IR radiation that would normally escape straight to space. By slowing down that escape, it increases the energy content of the Earth's atmosphere and thus its temperature. One really has nothing to do with the other. Got it?

2) The only way the temperature of the other planets could be changing is for some large scale event to be changing them: atmospheric changes such as the Earth is undergoing, asteroid collisions, massive volcanism, albedo changes, etc. Since nothing like that is happening on ALL the planets, the only thing left would be their common energy source, the sun. However, the sun has been cooling of late. It would not be making the planets warm up, it is going to allow them to cool. The Earth warming up is NOT part of a Solar System-wide event.

3) No one meant to suggest that human Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are warming other planets. You have misunderstood something - though that may not be your fault at all.

Green Is the Color of Snot

From the very beginning, your enviro cult has been one of sadistic job-killers, silly flower children, and Born to Rule preppy snobs. Why should we believe its latest fad, dishonestly presented by selective data and sophistic rhetorical tricks?

 

[Crick]

Didja hear that? He said we was so-FIS-teekated

 

[Dot Com]

I'm curious whether or not our new EPA head believes global warming is taking place. Has anyone heard anything from him that indicates one way or the other?

And, really, what does this matter? Is he not there as a representative of the president responsible for the enforcement of the law? His personal opinions should be pretty much irrelevant.

judging by the way he's copynpasted his way through the courts using energy industry memos? I doubt it.

 

[Crick]

Yeah. There's a bad tendency for the RNC to take legal advice from whoever gives them the most money. There are acres of pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-aboriginal land rights, etc ad infinitum law written word-for-word by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Now THAT would make a good simulation of the Illuminati.

 

[Dot Com]

Yeah. There's a bad tendency for the RNC to take legal advice from whoever gives them the most money. There are acres of pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-aboriginal land rights, etc ad infinitum law written word-for-word by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Now THAT would make a good simulation of the Illuminati.

exactly!!! They worship $$$ over all else. That much is abundantly clear

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah. There's a bad tendency for the RNC to take legal advice from whoever gives them the most money. There are acres of pro-business, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-aboriginal land rights, etc ad infinitum law written word-for-word by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Now THAT would make a good simulation of the Illuminati.

exactly!!! They worship $$$ over all else. That much is abundantly clear

Translation?

Im really starting to be bothered by this gigantic bumpy cucumber stuck far up my ass

 

[RollingThunder]

Im really starting to be bothered by this gigantic bumpy cucumber stuck far up my ass.

That's kind of what we all figured was happening, kookster.

Probably not as uncomfortable though as that giant bumpy denier cult turd stuck in your brain.

 

[westwall]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

He's correct. To date there is ZERO empirical evidence to support the theory. Just screaming "CONSENSUS" doesn't make it so...

 

[Crick]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

He's correct. To date there is ZERO empirical evidence to support the theory. Just screaming "CONSENSUS" doesn't make it so...

You know that statement to be a lie.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[RollingThunder]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

To date there is ZERO empirical evidence to support the theory. Just screaming "CONSENSUS" doesn't make it so...

And the walleyedretard provides an excellent example of denier cult stark insanity, in its most obvious form....as well as his usual profound ignorance about the actual meaning and significance of a 'scientific consensus'.....

In the REAL world of science....

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Read it if you dare, walleyed. Although it is doubtful that any amount of scientific evidence could penetrate the armored shell of your utter ignorance and disbelief in science.

 

[westwall]

He says it is very difficult to measure actual human influence and that the research and the debate need to carry on.

Then he canned the entire climate research department and explained to his interviewer why the EPA itself should be disbanded.

"Giving pink slips to scientists across the federal government, including 43% of EPA scientists, and proposing to eliminate the US Climate Global Research Program in its entirety makes one question who this administration will rely on for scientific research and facts." --Gina McCarthy, former EPA head

"Pruitt loves baseball so put it this way: An EPA head denying science is like [Derek] Jeter refusing to use a bat. He'd be fired and so should Pruitt," -- Michael Brune, Executive Head of the Sierra Club.

What an admirable bunch are American conservatives under the leadership of an ignorant, mentally unstable fool like Donald Trump. Exceptionally so. Eh?

He's correct. To date there is ZERO empirical evidence to support the theory. Just screaming "CONSENSUS" doesn't make it so...

You know that statement to be a lie.

Sent from my VS985 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

No. I KNOW that statement to be factually correct.

 

[RollingThunder]

No. I KNOW that statement to be factually correct.

But you're a wacko! What you imagine you "know", walleyed, has very, very little connection to reality.

The scientific facts in the real world where the sane humans live....

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

 

[Dr Grump]

Water vapor is the primary cause of so-called Global Warming

And how did that work out for Venus

 

[Old Rocks]

Hilarious how someone like me comes at this from a logical and factual angle and we get "Religious Arguments" from the Left.

Here's my question for Lefty:

When are you going to march in the streets to protest Beer Bubbles and demand Americans drink Flat Beer, Flat Sodas, Flat Champagne, Eat Flat Bread, and demand the banning of all cheese, cake, yogurts and other foods with active cultures or that require CO2 as part of the process of their being made?

Congrats lefty, not only are you at war with America you apparently are engaged in a Jihad against Beer Bubbles!

And you wonder why people laugh at you.

No, TOT, they are laughing at people so dumb as to think what you just posted was in any way logical. The problem is fossil carbon. Carbon that is not currently in the atmosphere.