It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Picks Climate Change Dissenter to Lead EPA

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
If humans didn't cause it, they certainly are contributing heavily to climate change. By the time the truth is realized, it will likely be too late. There are multiple scientific organizations representing thousands of scientists who have said quite clearly... climate change is real, human activity plays a big part on how it is developing. Of course, that was pretty obvious to anyone who didn't buy into the "Well the climate changes every 70k to 500k years.. and we are just at that point again, temperatures rising coincidentally in conjuncture with the burning of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution!"

Having a fossil fuel burning advocate running the EPA is having the fox guard then hen house.




posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: spiritualzombie

From this article, what Pruitt said was exactly right. This debate needs to be had, especially before committing to massive and expensive agreements.


I think we need to let scientists and engineers lead on this and take the politics out of it as much as is possible.

So far allowing politicians to grandstand on climate change has netted nothing but a tax scheme that benefits politicians and corporations who can afford to pollute.


I couldn't have said it any better myself. You've hit the nail on the head here. Do I believe climate change is man made? No. Do I believe that human activity and pollution resulting from human activity has exponentially sped up the process? A resounding yes.

It's about damn time that the people with the education and actual qualifications tackle this issue. Those who deny climate change have quite a bit to loose in terms of profits. Those who support the idea may have quite a bit to gain monetarily - I'm thinking politicians and corporations that may benefit from a carbon tax for instance. As far as the scientists, I'm not sure they benefit one way or another besides keeping earth healthy and habitable for future generations.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Most of us understand the basics of what needs to be done-- and none of it involves appointing a climate change denier and ally to fossil fuel to lead the EPA.

So what the F is Trump doing?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO




How do you not see the Trillions of dollars in Carbon taxes that have had zero effect but to line pockets ??


You're conflating a retarded liberal policy for science. And this is why we can't get passed this problem.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

The data is crystal clear that humans are the cause. We are going through a warming period right now, but it's much more rapid than we've ever seen in the Earth's history. Additionally, rates of ocean acidification have risen proportionally to our carbon output.

The data is pretty clear that humans are contributing. The only real question is whether it will lead to a bunch of us dying or not.

The remedy is pretty clear too but no one wants to get the ball rolling.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: pteridine

The data is crystal clear that humans are the cause. We are going through a warming period right now, but it's much more rapid than we've ever seen in the Earth's history. Additionally, rates of ocean acidification have risen proportionally to our carbon output.

The data is pretty clear that humans are contributing. The only real question is whether it will lead to a bunch of us dying or not.

The remedy is pretty clear too but no one wants to get the ball rolling.


"The data is crystal clear that humans are the cause" and " The data is pretty clear that humans are contributing." Which is it?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
"The data is crystal clear that humans are the cause" and " The data is pretty clear that humans are contributing." Which is it?


Our contributions are the cause of the rate of warming being greatly accelerated. A process that should take 10,000 years is happening in the span of 100.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Do people really need verification that humans are raping the planet?

I mean, Really, do people need it posted in Black & White that most humans don't give a crap?



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
He's putting him there to dismantle it.

Or, if not to dismantle it, to not enforce any of the policies.
edit on 12/8/2016 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It won't matter if it's in black and white. These people are denialists. Remember when Obama was to blame as of day one for the problems in the Middle East and the economic recession? They were in denial of Bush's role. Remember how Trump was never held accountable for anything he said? They denied things Trump said, and then denied any of it mattered. Of course they deny Climate Change. Their role is to deny responsibility at ever turn.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Annee

It won't matter if it's in black and white. These people are denialists. Remember when Obama was to blame as of day one for the problems in the Middle East and the economic recession? They were in denial of Bush's role. Remember how Trump was never held accountable for anything he said? They denied things Trump said, and then denied any of it mattered. Of course they deny Climate Change. Their role is to deny responsibility at ever turn.


I still find the interesting thing about Bush/Obama - - - is that the expense of the Bush war was not included in Bush's presidency - - - - but, recovery from it is dumped on Obama.

Oh, DENIAL - - - - in this current voting fiasco - - - - beyond belief.

Reps seem to totally screw things up. Then Dems come in an clean it up. Then get kicked out again.

Its a really stupid cycle.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So, what you're saying is that you're a YUGE fan of Trump?

It's hard to gauge, what with you hardly ever posting anything about the guy, and even then, it's so unbiased that I just can't figure out your opinion of the man...




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Annee

Of course they deny Climate Change. Their role is to deny responsibility at ever turn.

If you read the posts, you will see that the questions are regarding the anthropogenic origins of climate change and how much humans are contributing, not that change is not happening.
How much did humans contribute to the little ice age or the medieval warming? Why did the climate researchers cook the books with respect to the hockey stick curve or write the climategate emails? Why haven't the models accurately predicted present temperatures?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Sounds like an argument to deny responsibility, doesn't it.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: pteridine

Sounds like an argument to deny responsibility, doesn't it.



Does it? It sounds like a question as to what is real and what is ginned up by the climate researchers. Maybe we can effect climate change and maybe the solution to that is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. How do we do that and what pain are people willing to accept to do so?
I note that many who gripe have no real solution other than "we should stop using fossil fuels" which is the blind trying to lead the sighted. Usually, those same folks want everyone else to sacrifice and not them because they came up with the genius level recommendation.
What do you do, how do you do it, who pays for it, how do you get the rest of the world [China and India]to do the same things, and what will the outcomes be if you can pull it off?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie




What the F is this?


Reality, welcome to it.

Do you have anything to back up the claim that he is a con man, or villain? Dumbass?



Picking someone as head of the EPA that has close ties to the fossil fuel industry and denies climate change....that is a good start for proof.

Dumbass has already been proven. (grabbing female body parts, twitter wars, buying large portraits if himself with charity money and hanging it in his golf course).

Con man was proven in multiple court settlements.

All we have left is villain. Wait, lots of Trump 'University' folks would feel that way. Or black people he wouldn't rent to. Circles back to settling for money with the DOJ.

There you have it.


Since when did falling for global warming have anything to do with running the EPA?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: spiritualzombie
Drain the swamp into a Cesspool. Only one of many horrible choices, Mnuchin, Linda McMahon, DeVos, Mattis, Sessions, Palin has to be next.


Do not say her name. I will have nightmares.


Could you be any more melodramatic? Your authoritarian attitude is why Trump won, and why your disgust over his picks make them a little more enjoyable. Also why y'all are called speshul snowflakes.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

I note that many who gripe have no real solution other than "we should stop using fossil fuels" which is the blind trying to lead the sighted. Usually, those same folks want everyone else to sacrifice and not them because they came up with the genius level recommendation.


I agree. If you complain, you should have an answer. Or at least an idea for change.

At least I remember when families had only one car - - and shared it. Only one TV & radio - - and shared it as a family.

Every neighborhood had its own little Ma/Pa market - you walked to.

And, at least my grade school, had a free after school Rec program every day and weekends. Plus they had a weekly family dance/potluck program.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

There are answers to your questions. Nuclear, Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Hydro, are 5 substitutes for fossil fuels.

As for how we get other countries to go along with it, it's by setting deals that we both adhere to. China would love to use these more advanced power generation systems, but they find it unfair that they have to transition to them right away when the west was able to develop with cheaper sources. That's why deals mostly involve China scaling back on coal power plants while the west uses something else.

The US is actually in an excellent place to replace coal, our geothermal reserves are immense, and we have the coastline for nuclear. Geothermal and nuclear pair together very well too, because geothermal is cheap (cheaper than coal) which offsets the cost for nuclear. Every time we talk about nuclear though, the problems with the first and second generation plants are brought up (we would be building fourth generation plants), and then it further gets tabled because of the potential of thorium reactors.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: reldra

I see rampant opinions, still reading through facts elsewhere.

Never heard of the guy honestly, doing my own leg work now.



And that my friends is a prime example of cognitive dissonance in action.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join