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: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




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.

If that's the case, he's ignorant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually, you would think that if smoking CAUSES 80 to 85 % of lung cancer, you would think that with smoking rates in the population having decreased dramatically since the 1960's....

Instead...

www.medpagetoday.com...




Lung Cancer on the Rise in Nonsmokers – But Why? Rates in U.S. and U.K. doubled since 2008 without obvious clues


When new evidence arises, I change my opinion. What do you do?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




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.

If that's the case, he's ignorant.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Perhaps he has access to information too. Just a thought.
Perhaps he has more information on the manipulation of data that has been alleged.
It's time to have the debate. You calling him ignorant because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps he has access to information too.
Yup. That's where his confirmation bias comes in. He ignores information which is contrary to his paradigm.


Perhaps he has more information on the manipulation of data that has been alleged.
Then why not reveal the hoax?


You calling him ignorant because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.
If, as you claim, he doubts that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity, he is ignorant. Or lying.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You can present the case for rising CO2 until you are blue in the face. That does not prove anything except that CO2 is rising. Where is the evidence connecting those two factors and where is the evidence ruling out anything else.

At the time that the CO2 = rising temperatures were developed, oceans circulation influence was unknown and indead, many circulations have now be identified that were not known in the 1980s and 1990s

The fact that alarmist are pointing to weather events as proof of climate change, smacks solely of desperation. Where is California's permanent drought?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps he has access to information too.
Yup. That's where his confirmation bias comes in. He ignores information which is contrary to his paradigm.


Perhaps he has more information on the manipulation of data that has been alleged.
Then why not reveal the hoax?


You calling him ignorant because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.
If, as you claim, he doubts that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity, he is ignorant. Or lying.



You are not listening, which is a major problem with those that have made their conclusions.
Pruitt said that there is still debate to be had as to whether the human influence is the primary influence to be concerned with, not that humans had no influence.

There is no hoax, at least I very much doubt it - only disagreement on the extent of man made influence and whether the response / solutions to the problem are appropriate.

In the thread you linked you said the below in response to that very question:

The data is data, it is neither theory nor proof. I suppose you could say the interpretation of the data is theory. Feel free to provide an alternate.

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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Where is the evidence connecting those two factors and where is the evidence ruling out anything else.
So, you don't believe that increased CO2 concentrations increase forcing? You sort of go back and forth on that, from what I can tell.


The fact that alarmist are pointing to weather events as proof of climate change, smacks solely of desperation.
So, you don't believe global temperatures are increasing? You sort of go back and forth on that, from what I can tell.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Exxon Mobil must be very happy with their investment.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

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

HA!
I knew it!!!

Thank you soo much for just..being you.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Pruitt said that there is still debate to be had as to whether the human influence is the primary influence t be concerned with, not that humans had no influence.
This is what you said:

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.
Does he think that increasing CO2 concentrations are due to some other cause? Does he offer any alternatives to increasing CO2 concentrations being the primary cause of warming?
 



There is no hoax, at least I very much doubt it
I thought you said this:


Perhaps he has more information on the manipulation of data that has been alleged.
Would not data manipulation imply a hoax?
 



In the thread you linked you said the below in response to that very question:
You, and Pruitt, are free to come up with an alternative explanation for increasing CO2 levels. As long as they fit the facts.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Not exactly, but it could have something to do with genetics I suppose.

Could be. My mom smoked for 60 years. She was at two packs a day when we put her in the nursing home (where she's not allowed to smoke).

I quit when I went to work in the hospital. Interestingly, the common denominator for our cases of lung cancer was 'the kitchen'. Yep ... seems that the kitchen help had the highest instances of lung cancer. One might reasonably conclude that inhaling airborne grease to be the principal cause. The fact that they were lesser educated and some of 'em maybe even smoked out on the loading dock may not have helped either.

My anecdotal observations count for nothing though. Only the stuff that people want published. Sure hope it isn't agenda driven. Since I quit, I can hardly stand to be around smokers.

CO2 concentrations ... hee hee ... Compared to the raw power of our star? Compared to the energy release of a volcano? How much energy was released when Mount St. Helens erupted? Way more than 1500 times the energy of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, right?

If people want to control the amount of CO2 in the air, then we need more trees, more grass, more shrubs. It's not gonna fix climate change though. People aren't causing the climate to change ... and we're fools to believe we could even if we wanted to. If we could change it, why aren't we? Why is it that the only thing we're being told is that, "You're breaking it."

I'll tell you why: Because it was The Official Story, it was the Political Narrative ... it was a bold-faced lie. That's a spade.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Pruitt said that there is still debate to be had as to whether the human influence is the primary influence t be concerned with, not that humans had no influence.
This is what you said:

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.
Does he think that increasing CO2 concentrations are due to some other cause? Does he offer any alternatives to increasing CO2 concentrations being the primary cause of warming?
 



There is no hoax, at least I very much doubt it
I thought you said this:


Perhaps he has more information on the manipulation of data that has been alleged.
Would not data manipulation imply a hoax?
 



In the thread you linked you said the below in response to that very question:
You, and Pruitt, are free to come up with an alternative explanation for increasing CO2 levels. As long as they fit the facts.



He said that he does not believe right now that humans are the primary cause, but more research/analysis is required. That seems reasonable. You are just going to have to accept that the bully pulpit has been taken away from those that want to push their own views as the only acceptable views.

A hoax would need to be much broader than some scientists manipulating data to fit a narrative - it would have to be far more widespread and involve too many people for me to believe it could be coordinated.

I am sure that the EPA will do the proper investigations to answer the questions that need answering.
edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

He did put a politician in charge.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




He said that he does not believe right now that humans are the primary cause, but more research/analysis is required.

Right, contrary to the opinions of a vast majority of climate scientists, he has other ideas. Meanwhile, the administration is reducing funding for that research.


I am sure that the EPA will do the proper investigations to answer the questions that need answering.
How? With a head who doesn't believe that human activity can influence climate? How, with an administration which is cutting funding for research into those questions.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse


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.

How can fracking have a connection with weather patterns?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills




He did put a politician in charge.
One who is a skeptic though .



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl


CO2 concentrations ... hee hee ... Compared to the raw power of our star?
Yes. Because CO2 prevents the power of the Sun from returning to space. Or are you claiming that the Sun has gotten hotter? Or have you just not bothered to actually try to understand what is going on?


If we could change it, why aren't we?
We are.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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


Is that why the models are so super accurate?

Oh wait, they aren't.

It's almost like (gasp) the designers don't know all the science and need more analysis before making policies that have negative impact.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Oh wait, they aren't.

Correct. They are not "super" accurate, some are better than others. But they show a warming trend, as do the observations.

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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. Because CO2 prevents the power of the Sun from returning to space. Or are you claiming that the Sun has gotten hotter? Or have you just not bothered to actually try to understand what is going on?


Are you claiming the Sun does not have solar maximums and minimums? That sunspot activity has no impact on solar output?


We are.


How much? Answer: we don't know.




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join