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.

 

Scott Pruitt Says No to CO2 and Social Justice at EPA

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Scott Pruitt has made his position clear on the effects of man on CO2 levels and global warming...and it's a refreshing change from the authoritarian approach of the last administration who demonised any dissenters to their narrative.


Asked his views on the role of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels, in increasing global warming, Mr. Pruitt said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that “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


One hopes that this will open up the debate, which is most certainly not settled, and a voice can be given to the scientific community that rejects the notion of man made global warming. In the long run, a healthy open debate about this will likely be more productive, even if it turns out that global warming IS man made.





www.breitbart.com...


edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



+10 more 
posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You can agree or disagree with the cabinet picks from Trump.

What's absolutely priceless is the panic and head-exploding going on with the leftists!



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Good thing Trump put a lawyer in charge of the EPA because who would know more about science than a lawyer?

Trump continues to dumb down America with his ridiculous administration picks.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: UKTruth

Good thing Trump put a lawyer in charge of the EPA because who would know more about science than a lawyer?

Trump continues to dumb down America with his ridiculous administration picks.


As I said, a proper debate will be much more healthy than the bullying tactics we've seen over the last few years.
I added a second video, which is more of a critical response.
I hope you notice in that second video how they lie - conflating Pruitt's opinion on the effect of CO2 and global warming with the impact of man. This level of dishonesty in reporting has been part of the problem, along with demonising so called 'deniers'.

I think the run of scientific bullying when it comes to climate change is over.

edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
1st video ... go to 0:28 ... now we've at least got a guy giving honest answers: "We don't know that yet."



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
If the head of the EPA does not think that CO2 levels are the major cause of climate change, then we should listen to him. He does state that it does need more research but that it is not even close to conclusive. I believe we should not be wasting all of the resources we have and that we must make a moderate progression to lessening our impact on the environment. I do think unnatural chemistry and even concentrated natural chemistry is a problem that needs to be addressed. I also believe that doing too much fracking, something Obama seems to have rubber stamped, is not good for our environment and our changing weather patterns.

We have to get rid of polarization on these issues and meet a little above half way with environmental responsibility. We do not need to go crazy but we do need to start taking better care of this planet and upsetting the chemistry of everything by our actions. You are either with us or against us should not be allowed, everyone just needs to get more conscious about this and we NEED to start making things to last longer. Make death dating or planned obsolescence illegal and fine those who push this kind of thing. There is no reason why a furnace shouldn't last thirty years or a refrigerator should not last fifteen years or more. It is getting rediculous living in a consumer based society where sales numbers dictate what is good.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
1st video ... go to 0:28 ... now we've at least got a guy giving honest answers: "We don't know that yet."


Exactly - he wants more analysis and a real consensus, not a forced one.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The EPA is no different than the BLM or FDA at this point. They are bloated, self righteous power freaks.

They have all overstepped their purpose and become political whores for power, influence, and cash.

Shut it down.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
So lawyers are good people now, dont change ats.
edit on 11-3-2017 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

A proper debate? Bully tactics? You think Trump and his administration are for proper debates? You think Trump and his administration don't engage in bully tactics? What in the hell are you thinking?

Again, having a lawyer head the EPA is just stupid as a brain surgeon head HUD, Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, Devos as Secretary of Education, the CEO of Exxon being Secretary of State, and Steve Bannon being a White House chief strategist.

None of the above makes any sense. Well, from a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ perspective, it sure does. Drain the swamp my ass but Trump supporting conservatives don't see it that way because they're political hacks.

With these moronic choices there will be no debate, just bully tactics to further their agendas.
edit on 11-3-2017 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
looking forward to them also saying smoking isn't a major contributor of lung cancer either..after all, you can find some doctor somewhere that will disagree with the overwhelming majority.

who needs scientists when we got lawyers..Trumps America. make america bake again



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Snarl
1st video ... go to 0:28 ... now we've at least got a guy giving honest answers: "We don't know that yet."


Exactly - he wants more analysis and a real consensus, not a forced one.

So a global consensus from public and private scientists usually completely unrelated to one another isn't real
but some execs from opec say it isn't real, a few business tycoons saying the science is murky, and a political party in the west that kowtows to corporations say its probably not that big a deal is totally real in your mind.

gotcha.
edit on 11-3-2017 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
dry land is not a myth, ive seen it!



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
looking forward to them also saying smoking isn't a major contributor of lung cancer either..after all, you can find some doctor somewhere that will disagree with the overwhelming majority.

who needs scientists when we got lawyers..Trumps America. make america bake again

25 years and finished up at three packs per day. Please, tell me why I don't have cancer.

Because of the words "major contributor"? Those cigarettes were only contributing to the cause? Some of us get cancer ... and some of us don't. Have 'they' ever told us why?

Now do you understand the difference between Science (with an uppercase S) and soft science?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Snarl
1st video ... go to 0:28 ... now we've at least got a guy giving honest answers: "We don't know that yet."


Exactly - he wants more analysis and a real consensus, not a forced one.

So a global consensus from public and private scientists usually completely unrelated to one another isn't real
but some execs from opec say it isn't real, a few business tycoons saying the science is murky, and a political party in the west that kowtows to corporations say its probably not that big a deal is totally real in your mind.

gotcha.


Have you ever read one of those reports and examined the parameters and the evidence that derives the report? The reports are opinions. The Opinions are based on research but not all of the research actually backs up the opinion.

I am for cleaning up the economy and lowering unnecessary emmissions, like from all the Jets flying all over the world and the ships hauling goods back and forth across the Oceans. Trucking foods across the country is also not good. We need to start getting rid of the ecological nightmare we live in, not just talk CO2 emmissions. Trees tie up carbon well, let more trees grow, don't be making new furniture for everyone over and over again. We need to change the way we think, not have the government put carbon tax on things. We need to waste less. the people in the USA are some of the biggest wasters in the world.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




Good thing Trump put a lawyer in charge of the EPA because who would know more about science than a lawyer?
I suppose he could have put a politician in charge of the EPA ...someone like



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Snarl
1st video ... go to 0:28 ... now we've at least got a guy giving honest answers: "We don't know that yet."


Exactly - he wants more analysis and a real consensus, not a forced one.

So a global consensus from public and private scientists usually completely unrelated to one another isn't real
but some execs from opec say it isn't real, a few business tycoons saying the science is murky, and a political party in the west that kowtows to corporations say its probably not that big a deal is totally real in your mind.

gotcha.


No, there are many scientists who disagree with the conclusions drawn by the 'consensus'. Mr Pruitt is in the prime position to listen to all sides and make the right decisions. He seems to be approaching it as science instead of the religion it had become. You can keep bleating on about a global consensus all you like, but your words are hollow and fortunately the fascist approach of 'agree climate change is real or else' is dying.
edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




Those cigarettes were only contributing to the cause? Some of us get cancer ... and some of us don't. Have 'they' ever told us why?

Not exactly, but it could have something to do with genetics I suppose. Interesting though, that a lot (a whole lot) more smokers get lung cancer than those who don't.

Not really the same thing as increasing CO2 concentrations causing warming though. The science explains exactly why that happens.

Pruitt was an AGW "skeptic" for a living. His confirmation bias is strong.

edit on 3/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: UKTruth

A proper debate? Bully tactics? You think Trump and his administration are for proper debates? You think Trump and his administration don't engage in bully tactics? What in the hell are you thinking?

Again, having a lawyer head the EPA is just stupid as a brain surgeon head HUD, Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy, Devos as Secretary of Education, the CEO of Exxon being Secretary of State, and Steve Bannon being a White House chief strategist.

None of the above makes any sense. Well, from a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ perspective, it sure does. Drain the swamp my ass but Trump supporting conservatives don't see it that way because they're political hacks.

With these moronic choices there will be no debate, just bully tactics to further their agendas.


It would appear, from Pruitt's words, that they indeed wanting a debate. That can only be healthy and a welcome departure from what we have had for the past decade.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Snarl




Those cigarettes were only contributing to the cause? Some of us get cancer ... and some of us don't. Have 'they' ever told us why?

Not exactly. It could have something to do with genetics I suppose. Interesting though, that a lot (a whole lot) more smokers get lung cancer than those who don't.

Not really the same thing as increasing CO2 concentrations causing warming though. The science explains exactly why that happens.

Pruitt was an AGW "skeptic" for a living. His confirmation bias is strong.



You are not framing the argument correctly. The comments by Mr Pruitt were not related to his views on whether increasing CO2 concentrations cause global warming. His challenge and call for more analysis was on the effect of human contribution to increasing CO2 concentrations, and whether those contributions were a primary factor or concern.


edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join