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

[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

No. I KNOW that statement to be factually correct.

Is it your claim is that WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical data supporting anthropgenic causation of global warming?

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

 

[SSDD]

Is it your claim is that WG-I's "The Physical Science Basis" contains no empirical data supporting anthropgenic causation of global warming?

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

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Bwhaaaaaaaaa

Your citing the IPCC Working Group 4.. Carbon Isotopes, which have been shown to be made by burning differing extractions of oils, make your carbon dating of fractional CO2, in our atmosphere, worthless.

Their calculations of fractional CO2 are garbage because current burnings are creating more of the different isotopes today. The paper even omits the error bars of the studies. Which means they know! Got to love the IPCC deceptions at every turn.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Oh really.....only fossil carbon is poison? Hmmmmm..........

How convenient too.

Intelligent CO2?

Now they are making claims that CO2 is intelligent and only man made CO2 is harmful....

 

[RollingThunder]

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

Hilarious delusions you have, OriginalRetard.

You obviously don't know any "facts" and you certainly aren't in any way "logical".

What you actually get "from the left" is the accurate climate science that reflects reality, that tens of thousands of very intelligent professional scientists, working in scores of countries around the world, have independently produced as part of the world scientific community, after many decades of intensive research.

Like all denier cult dingbats, what you moronically use to blind yourself to reality and deny the actual well verified science that confirms the reality and danger of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes, are your denier cult myths and dogmas ("Religious Arguments") that have no connection to reality or science.

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.

What you are obviously too stupid and ignorant to grasp, OriginalRetard, is that ALL of the CO2 that various industries use to make soda, beer, etc., etc., amounts to only a few million tons of CO2 annually for the whole planet (a very trivial amount, relatively), and no matter what cheap expedient they use now to make CO2 from natural gas, CO2 could instead be fairly easily extracted directly from the air around us for use in all of the foods you mention, with no net gain in atmospheric CO2......it is just not a significant part of the problem, no matter what stupid lies you've been fed.

.......While, in reality, the global warming problem is actually being caused by the 40,000,000,000 (forty billion) tons of previously sequestered CO2 that humans activities are currently releasing into the air every year, mostly from burning fossil fuels (the annual amount has been increasing every year since the 1800s)......so the current emissions (that the world is trying to get under control and diminish) are about a hundred thousand times more than the amount released by all the sodas and beers and all other CO2 emitting foods in the world. It is those enormous yearly emissions of fossil carbon, that had not been part of the Earth's natural carbon cycle for millions of years, that have, year by year and at an accerating rate, brought atmospheric CO2 levels from their pre-industrial levels of about 280ppm to their current highly elevated level of about 410ppm. This is a greater difference in CO2 levels than the natural changes in CO2 levels that were a key factor in ending the 'ice ages'.

You poor bewildered, bamboozled denier cult dupe!

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.

Oh really.....only fossil carbon is poison? Hmmmmm..........
How convenient too.

Nope! How stupid! Like how stupid can you get, mudbrain?

All carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and all of it in the air, both natural and human produced, is causing the current abrupt rapid warming, but the whole problem of global warming is being caused specifically by the INCREASE in CO2 from 280ppm, which had prevailed for many thousands of years, to the 410ppm current level, which has resulted from the digging up and burning of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon (oil, coal, natural gas) that had previously been sequestered in the depths of the Earth for millions of years.

 

[Markle]

All carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and all of it in the air, both natural and human produced, is causing the current abrupt rapid warming, but the whole problem of global warming is being caused specifically by the INCREASE in CO2 from 280ppm, which had prevailed for many thousands of years, to the 410ppm current level, which has resulted from the digging up and burning of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon (oil, coal, natural gas) that had previously been sequestered in the depths of the Earth for millions of years.

What percentage of all our atmosphere is CO2? What other gasses make up our atmosphere?

The Unites States has a population of about 330 million people. The World has a population of about 7.35 BILLION. So we are what percentage of that 7.35 BILLION people. How many still cook with wood, peat, dung to heat their homes and cook? How many BILLION?

How did the Vikings colonize Greenland, raise crops and raise herds of animals to resupply their ships on their way from Norway to North America?

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?
Date:
December 31, 2009
Source:
American Geophysical Union
Summary:
Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

 

[Crick]

You have misinterpreted the article and the study on which it is based. Here is the full text of Wolfgang Knorr's GRL article. The actual topic is the ability of the oceans and the terrestrial biota to absorb a fraction of the CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere. Dr Knorr's conclusion is that there has been little change in that capacity.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

 

[mamooth]

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

So?

Oh, I see your problem. You don't know what "airborne fraction of carbon dioxide" means.

You think it means "The total atmospheric CO2 concentration". No, that's totally wrong.

It means "the fraction of human-emitted CO2 that is not absorbed by the biosphere." That number is remaining constant, but that number says nothing about the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which keeps going up.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

There never will be empirical evidence you idiot. It's based on modelling, which a lot of PROVABLE science has been done over the years. Do you think Galileo flew up in a spaceship to get his empirical evidence that the earth orbited around the sun instead of the other way around? You think Venus is hotter than Mercury because it is closer to the sun or because the atmosphere is covered in cloud and traps the heat?

 

[SSDD]

[

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

There never will be empirical evidence you idiot. It's based on modelling, which a lot of PROVABLE science has been done over the years. Do you think Galileo flew up in a spaceship to get his empirical evidence that the earth orbited around the sun instead of the other way around? You think Venus is hotter than Mercury because it is closer to the sun or because the atmosphere is covered in cloud and traps the heat?

Hey dr grump...glad to see that you finally acknowledge that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis after you were so adamant about your climate scientist buddies having volumes of it.

Now all you need to do is acknowledge how many predictive failures the AGW hypothesis has experienced, and realize that in actual science, one predictive failure is all a hypothesis gets before it is scrapped and the search for a more realistic hypothesis begins and you will be one of the thinking people who rejects the current pseudoscience...

As to what Galilelo had...he had observational evidence which was repeatable, and could be used to accurately predict the locations of the planets in the future....the agw hypothesis is not a useful predictor....

And venus is hotter than mercury because its atmosphere is 92 time more dense than the atmosphere here....the mass of the atmosphere generates heat...it certainly isn't a greenhouse effect because the surface barely receives any sunlight at all which would then be radiated to power a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

 

[Dr Grump]

[

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

There never will be empirical evidence you idiot. It's based on modelling, which a lot of PROVABLE science has been done over the years. Do you think Galileo flew up in a spaceship to get his empirical evidence that the earth orbited around the sun instead of the other way around? You think Venus is hotter than Mercury because it is closer to the sun or because the atmosphere is covered in cloud and traps the heat?

Hey dr grump...glad to see that you finally acknowledge that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis after you were so adamant about your climate scientist buddies having volumes of it.

Now all you need to do is acknowledge how many predictive failures the AGW hypothesis has experienced, and realize that in actual science, one predictive failure is all a hypothesis gets before it is scrapped and the search for a more realistic hypothesis begins and you will be one of the thinking people who rejects the current pseudoscience...

As to what Galilelo had...he had observational evidence which was repeatable, and could be used to accurately predict the locations of the planets in the future....the agw hypothesis is not a useful predictor....

And venus is hotter than mercury because its atmosphere is 92 time more dense than the atmosphere here....the mass of the atmosphere generates heat...it certainly isn't a greenhouse effect because the surface barely receives any sunlight at all which would then be radiated to power a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

And scientists here have observable evidence. You think the polar ice caps melting is what? Shits and giggles.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

There never will be empirical evidence you idiot. It's based on modelling, which a lot of PROVABLE science has been done over the years. Do you think Galileo flew up in a spaceship to get his empirical evidence that the earth orbited around the sun instead of the other way around? You think Venus is hotter than Mercury because it is closer to the sun or because the atmosphere is covered in cloud and traps the heat?

Hey dr grump...glad to see that you finally acknowledge that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis after you were so adamant about your climate scientist buddies having volumes of it.

Now all you need to do is acknowledge how many predictive failures the AGW hypothesis has experienced, and realize that in actual science, one predictive failure is all a hypothesis gets before it is scrapped and the search for a more realistic hypothesis begins and you will be one of the thinking people who rejects the current pseudoscience...

As to what Galilelo had...he had observational evidence which was repeatable, and could be used to accurately predict the locations of the planets in the future....the agw hypothesis is not a useful predictor....

And venus is hotter than mercury because its atmosphere is 92 time more dense than the atmosphere here....the mass of the atmosphere generates heat...it certainly isn't a greenhouse effect because the surface barely receives any sunlight at all which would then be radiated to power a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

And scientists here have observable evidence. You think the polar ice caps melting is what? Shits and giggles.

Normal cyclical behavior of the earth.. That thing called 'physical evidence' which shows us that ice free polar regions has happened over and over again long before humans roamed the earth.

 

[Crick]

That it has happened before does NOT prove that the current meltdown is the result of any natural cycle. And it certainly does NOT prove that human GHG emissions have had no effect on the Earth's temperature.

 

[Markle]

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

So?

Oh, I see your problem. You don't know what "airborne fraction of carbon dioxide" means.

You think it means "The total atmospheric CO2 concentration". No, that's totally wrong.

It means "the fraction of human-emitted CO2 that is not absorbed by the biosphere." That number is remaining constant, but that number says nothing about the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which keeps going up.

THANK YOU! Just as I said!

 

[Markle]

That it has happened before does NOT prove that the current meltdown is the result of any natural cycle. And it certainly does NOT prove that human GHG emissions have had no effect on the Earth's temperature.

That it has happened in a repeating cycle over millions of years DOES prove it is a natural cycle. It also proves that there is nothing we can do to alter the cycle or what might happen if we did. Much more sensible is to prepare for the POSSIBLE changes to inevitably happen.

 

[Crick]

It's 2 o'clock in the afternoon as you sit in your office. The lights go out. Does history PROVE that night has fallen?

Specifically what cycle do you believe responsible for the warming observed over the last 150 years and what is its period and it's last few occurrences? Keep in mind that a cycle that takes place over millions of years won't fit with the observed rates for this cycle. You need one that's no more than a thousand years or so, peak to peak.

And then there's the carbon dioxide. CO2 has increased dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Basic science tells us that that CO2 should cause heating. Yet you say it's due to some natural cycle. What happened to the radiant forcing that CO2 should have caused?

Then there's the reality behind your "natural cycle". "Natural", is not a cause. Such a cycle has two possible drivers: changes in the Earth's orbit or changes in solar output. Unfortunately, both phenomena have been thoroughly investigated and neither has trended in a manner that could have produced the observed warming.

Got anything else?

 

[Markle]

Got anything else?

No Global Warming For 25 Years
Posted on February 3, 2017 by tonyheller
Satellites show that other than some non-climate fluctuations around the mean, global temperatures are about the same now as they were 25 years ago.

Read more:
No Global Warming For 25 Years | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

 

[SSDD]

[

That is precisely the claim..and when asked to bring forward even one piece of that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that you believe supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't do it...and what pitiful drivel you have brought demonstrates how easily you and folks like you are willing to be fooled by people you believe represent authority.

There never will be empirical evidence you idiot. It's based on modelling, which a lot of PROVABLE science has been done over the years. Do you think Galileo flew up in a spaceship to get his empirical evidence that the earth orbited around the sun instead of the other way around? You think Venus is hotter than Mercury because it is closer to the sun or because the atmosphere is covered in cloud and traps the heat?

Hey dr grump...glad to see that you finally acknowledge that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis after you were so adamant about your climate scientist buddies having volumes of it.

Now all you need to do is acknowledge how many predictive failures the AGW hypothesis has experienced, and realize that in actual science, one predictive failure is all a hypothesis gets before it is scrapped and the search for a more realistic hypothesis begins and you will be one of the thinking people who rejects the current pseudoscience...

As to what Galilelo had...he had observational evidence which was repeatable, and could be used to accurately predict the locations of the planets in the future....the agw hypothesis is not a useful predictor....

And venus is hotter than mercury because its atmosphere is 92 time more dense than the atmosphere here....the mass of the atmosphere generates heat...it certainly isn't a greenhouse effect because the surface barely receives any sunlight at all which would then be radiated to power a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

And scientists here have observable evidence. You think the polar ice caps melting is what? Shits and giggles.

The ice melting is evidence that the ice is melting...nothing else...to assign a cause without the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence is not science...that is religion.

And I can only suppose that you are unaware that ice, at one or both of the poles is the anomaly on earth...not the norm.

 

[SSDD]

That it has happened before does NOT prove that the current meltdown is the result of any natural cycle. And it certainly does NOT prove that human GHG emissions have had no effect on the Earth's temperature.

And simply claiming that what is happening isn't normal climate variability DOES NOT even begin to make a rational argument that it isn't...To date, there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that GHG's have anything whatsoever to do with climate.

 

[SSDD]

It's 2 o'clock in the afternoon as you sit in your office. The lights go out. Does history PROVE that night has fallen?

Is there a multi million year history of the lights going out at 2:00? If not, then one might suspect something else as that would be outside the range of natural variability....at present, however, there is nothing happening that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability.