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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Not sure if this piece was posted in the thread but here you go

Dear President-elect Donald J. Trump: We write to you as evangelical and mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, economists, legal scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders in support of your nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to the office of Administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has the crucial task of writing and enforcing regulations that apply statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President to protect the life and health of Americans.

Its work necessarily integrates science, economics, law, politics, and ethics, all of which are rooted in religious worldviews. A good Administrator must demonstrate expertise in at least some of these, and mature understanding of and receptivity to the insights of all. Scott Pruitt does. As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation to require corporations—including the energy corporations so prominent in his state’s economy—to abide by environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly expressed his conviction that the EPA’s role is not to create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to implement the intent of that legislation and nothing more. That is, he recognizes that environmental policy should be determined by the people’s elected representatives, not by unelected, unaccountable members of the federal bureaucracy.

He has also publicly opposed the abuse of the court system by use of “sue-and-settle” to reach sweetheart deals between the EPA and environmental advocacy groups. These are some of the obvious ways in which his legal expertise qualifies him for Administrator. Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation. He is prepared to hear all sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA.
wattsupwiththat.com...




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Oh wait, they aren't.

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


Trends depends on the starting point. I've noticed a lot of alarmist graphs start after the record temps in the 30s.

Meanwhile, I'm observing snow outside my window.


edit on 11-3-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Trends depends on the starting point.
Yes. Going back several hundred years, this one started in the past 100 or so.



Meanwhile, I'm observing snow outside my window.

Which model says that shouldn't happen?

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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Liberals overreached, and it has backfired on them. They made hyperbolic, apocalyptic predictions for global warming. When their timescales and armageddon predictions were off, time after time, it hurt their credibility. That's why crying wolf is such a tactical mistake, it hurts your case when your hysteria doesn't come true.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:39 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.



Yea and not one were one side calls the other the "arsonist in charge of the fire department". I do love the rhetoric how ever.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Meanwhile, I'm observing snow outside my window.

Which model says that shouldn't happen?


Hard to say, when the majority are observably wrong.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


Hard to say, when the majority are observably wrong.
I disagree. Observations fall within the margin of error for the majority.

But then, they are climate models. Not weather models. So your observation about snow is irrelevant.

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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Hard to say, when the majority are observably wrong.
I am sure you could cherry pick one but it would still be wrong ...oh well they tried



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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.



Vast majority?
I'd say a majority, but shame on any scientist who thinks even a vast majority must control science.
Happily humans have rejected that notion throughout history and individuals have been able to change the world.
One voice can change the entire understanding of how our world works.
edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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.

You're no fun, Phage. You know I'm right.

Answer me this and I might play. Why is space cold? Why can't it be warm? ... And why is space not at Absolute Cold? Where are those 4 degrees coming from?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




Why is space cold? Why can't it be warm?

Space is neither warm nor cold. It has no temperature, actually.


Where are those 4 degrees coming from?
You're talking about the CMB? Those microwaves are the expanded energy from the "Big Bang." And it's closer to 3º K.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




One voice can change the entire understanding of how our world works.

Indeed. Newton did it. Guess what? His genius was based on evidence. The evidence shows us that increased CO2 concentrations lead to increase radiative forcing. The evidence shows us that increased radiative forcing leads to increased temperatures.

Now, if someone could come up with evidence to the contrary that would be awesome. So, in lieu of doing anything about what is happening, better to just wait for the next Newton, or Einstein to tell us everything is fine. Just keep burning that crap at an every increasing rate. Good plan.



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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
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.


Wait why the hell would we trust a lawyer about climate science over scientists?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth




One voice can change the entire understanding of how our world works.

Indeed. Newton did it. Guess what? His genius was based on evidence. The evidence shows us that increased CO2 concentrations lead to increase radiative forcing. The evidence shows us that increased radiative forcing leads to increased temperatures.

Now, if someone could come up with evidence to the contrary that would be awesome. So, in lieu of doing anything about what is happening, better to just wait for the next Newton, or Einstein to tell us everything is fine. Just keep burning that crap at an every increasing rate. Good plan.




Perhaps we don't need to wait for the next Newton. Let's give more voice to the people who claim that man made global warming is over stated instead of treating them like pariahs.

Let me ask you a question? Have you properly studied the views of scientists that do not agree with your position?

I'd like to see a proper public debate - televised worldwide between groups of scientists on both sides, where evidence can be presented and challenged.
edit on 11/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And I repeat -......what happened to California's permanent drought?

Its seems that the people who believe themselves competent to predict the weather in 80 years are having a very hard hard time with short term predictions.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


Meanwhile, I'm observing snow outside my window.


So, because it's cold and there's snow outside your house, does that mean the established science that the sun is hot is incorrect, or do we need to study it more?

I mean, how could the sun be hot, there's snow outside?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Judith Curry is a good example of the toxic atmosphere that has been created. Well regarded and highly qualified, until she spoke out, after which she was destroyed and eventually forced out of science altogether.

www.corbettreport.com...


The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate



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



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:06 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.

Thats ok, tge IPCC but as their "head" an Eastern Indian Railroad Engineer. No , not a degree in engineering but an actual engineer .



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:22 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.


I would love to hear exactly what the Social Justice portion of the EPA did, ever, that we needed 2 billion dollars in tax dollars for.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

Wait why the hell would we trust a lawyer about climate science over scientists?


Different color money.




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join