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: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

CO2 and global warming has already been discredited, it only makes up .04 percent of the atmosphere and is an excuse to pay Al Gore and the Rothchilds carbon taxes. I would love to debate any alarmists on this subject.
edit on 12-3-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

The small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant is a misconception. Consider this, if the nitrate level in water reaches 20 ppm, it becomes dangerous to people. A increase of 3 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite significant since the level of CO2 has varied between 180 ppm and 280 ppm over hundreds of thousands of years before the industrial revolution.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

During the Ice Age CO2 was 10000 ppm and during the Ordovician Glacier Periods it was up to 16000ppm CO2. So more Co2 does not increase temperature in fact in the past the Earth was frozen with more CO2. Also lets not pretend that the Earth doesn't have a 26 thousand year astrological cycle, which creates prolong warming and cooling periods.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

10000 ppm? During the height of glaciation CO2 was 180 ppm as determined by ice core measurements which measured the gas bubbles trapped in ice cores.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Is there anyone who can explain the accuracy / or not of the IPCC models on temperature change over time?
I read recently that the 1990, 1995 and 2001 predictions are way off (massively over called).

Is this correct? - there is so much misinformation, one can never tell

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yabby
This guy Scott Pruitt is obviously an idiot and totally unqualified for the role he has been appointed to.
Like Dracula managing the blood bank.
Seriously, when 99% of the worlds experts all suggest rising man made co2 emissions are contributing to global warming and this fool can't see that?
Sheesh, i despair.

That is not even close to the truth.

The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).


The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.

Debating involves facts. You don't have any. =)


edit on 12-3-2017 by Mishmashum because: =)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.


edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.


Second grade here we come!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.


Second grade here we come!


Enjoy. Well done on your progression.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.


Second grade here we come!


Enjoy.


LOL. You don't even recognize an insult when you see one.

You really are clueless.


ETA: Oh now you see it.


edit on 12-3-2017 by Mishmashum because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.


Second grade here we come!


Enjoy.


LOL. You don't even recognize an insult when you see one.

You really are clueless.


ETA: Oh now you see it.



No, I just recognise your severe case of Coprolalia and choose not to take offence. Knock yourself out.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.


Perhaps he doesn't have access to information. Perhaps he's been bought and paid for, just a thought.
Perhaps he doesn't have more information on the slanderous lies about data being manipulated when it hasn't. The debate is over. You calling Pruitt right because you have drawn a conclusion is irrelevant.

See how easy it is to write your tripe?

You don't argue anything from fact. You are a BS artist. =)


Hence the need to have an open debate. So yes, perhaps he doesn't have anything to base his statement on.

I know that open debate is tripe to climate priests and their flock, but it's just tough luck. Get over it. There will be debate.

Hope that was clear enough for you.

Thanks.



The funny thing is you think you are debating. Poor little boy.


Actually I am not debating. That will be done by others on both sides as Pruitt has already said that there is disagreement and more analysis is required.
Again, hopefully that is clear for you.



It is nice to see you admit that you don't have any facts.


I actually do have two clear facts that are the basis for the thread.

1) Pruitt says he does not believe that human activity is the primary factor in global warming.
2) Pruitt has said there will be further analysis and debate.

That is what the thread is about.

Simple really.


Second grade here we come!


Enjoy.


LOL. You don't even recognize an insult when you see one.

You really are clueless.


ETA: Oh now you see it.



No, I just recognise your severe case of Coprolalia and choose not to take offence. Knock yourself out.


Better than pseudologia fantastica



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
In 2009 the Obama administration added CO2 to the list of toxic gases in order to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. While CO2 is dangerous in very high quantities, in my opinion it does not belong on this list. The reason is because just about any substance is dangerous in very large quantities.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Is there anyone who can explain the accuracy / or not of the IPCC models on temperature change over time?
I read recently that the 1990, 1995 and 2001 predictions are way off (massively over called).

Is this correct? - there is so much misinformation, one can never tell


The IPCC has stated this, take it for what it's worth.

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

edit on 12-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

lol, Obama's EPA administrator had degrees in planning and social anthropology. How is that any better than a lawyer?

His first one was a chemical engineer, who was put through school on scholarship by none other than SHELL OIL.
edit on 14-3-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join