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.

 

EPA's Pruitt Suggests Global Warming May Not Be A 'Bad Thing' For Humans

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hello ATS. So, let me see if I got this straight?....A climate Change denier is NOW saying the GLobal Warming may not be a bad thing for humans...? This doesn't make sense. You can't be against it when it serves one political agenda, then for it when it serves another.




The view is a new iteration of Pruitt’s antagonism toward established climate science, but it flies in the face of such research all the same. Scientists have long held a near-unanimous consensus that the climate is changing and that humans are the primary cause. World leaders and global organizations have declared the phenomenon one of the most pressing threats to humanity and have warned that unless the world works to halt greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, a host of climate-related effects could devastate the world.

The planet is already far off its goals to reduce such emissions, just two years after almost every country in the world signed on to the landmark Paris climate accord.

But Pruitt and others in the Trump administration have long moved to downplay the effects of climate change or outright rejected that it is happening (despite a White House report released in November that said humans were the dominant cause of global warming). Pruitt told CNBC a year ago, just weeks after he assumed his role at the EPA, that he rejected the science behind climate change and that President Donald Trump himself has called it a hoax manufactured by the Chinese.


So, they've changed from denial of climate science to now saying.."well, maybe it's not so bad..." I say we're being taken for a ride. What says ATS?

www.yahoo.com...
edit on 8-2-2018 by lostbook because: Word add




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
A climate Change denier


the dumbest label you could ever give to a person.

Who, in the history of the world, has ever denied that the climate changes?

But as long as you have a name to call someone, .........wait, isn't name calling juvenile?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I would greatly appreciate it being a bit warmer where I live.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: lostbook
A climate Change denier


the dumbest label you could ever give to a person.

Who, in the history of the world, has ever denied that the climate changes?

But as long as you have a name to call someone, .........wait, isn't name calling juvenile?


It isn't name calling. It's a title or a label given to someone who denies the science behind global warming/climate change but, of course, you knew that.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Humans must think very highly of themselves if they believe that they have any power over nature.

If humans were alive during the ice age would they have had any power to stop it from happening?
When the ice age ended and the glaciers melted would humans have had any power to stop that?

The earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling,we haven`t been keeping records long enough to know how long those cycles last. even if we did know precisely when those cycles begin and end we have no power to affect those cycles in the slightest.

When glaciers covered all of north America (including what is now the U.S.) who created the global warming that melted those glaciers? it wasn`t humans because we weren`t around way back then.
The theory that humans have the ability to significantly increase or decrease global temperatures, is laughable.
The theory that humans have the ability to prevent significant increases or decreases in global temperatures is equally laughable.

edit on 8-2-2018 by bluechevytree because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: lostbook
A climate Change denier


the dumbest label you could ever give to a person.

Who, in the history of the world, has ever denied that the climate changes?

But as long as you have a name to call someone, .........wait, isn't name calling juvenile?


It isn't name calling. It's a title or a label given to someone who denies the science behind global warming/climate change but, of course, you knew that.


that doesn't make the title any less idiotic, or those who might use it.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Whether it’s man-made is moot at this juncture of the ‘problem’. The Chinese economy is coal path-dependent and will be for some time. The Chinese economy is responsible for over half of the world’s coal consumption, so the idea that its a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese is ridiculous on the face of it.

Take home message: if it is man-made, it’s only gonna get worse, and if it isn’t there’s still little that can be done to mitigate it. Adaptation, for the win.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You know what he means. Climate change denier is a general term used for someone who rejects the evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change.

Scott Pruitt has no business being in charge of the EPA that is something inly a fool can deny.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

All hail science! But boys can be girls and the earth is flat. What an age to be alive.

The article you linked has Pruitt asking what the ideal temperature should be. That seems like it can be answered by science. I'd be interested to know that too, but I don't want to wade through the virtue signalling psuedoscience. Can you help me out? What does the authority of science say the ideal temperature should be?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bluechevytree

So all the plastic in the ocean that litters every beach in the world is natural, not the result of human activity and carelessness?

We can see the plastic in the ocean, we cannot see the gasses we pump into the atmosphere that can influence the weather and climate...

It is a bit ignorant to claim we do not have any power or influence over nature.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

lol, you are using the words "Climate Denier" and "Global Warming" as political phrases not scientific terms. That's where your confusion is, but that is the goal of indoctrination.

The earth always heats up and cools off. A warmer earth is better for humanity then a cooling earth.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Plastic is not the climate and it's quite a stretch to assert that it effects the weather.



.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I want to discuss this because it reveals a pattern with Trump and his team. Deny until proven a lie then try to flip it into...."I was saying this all along."



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Denying bad science brought about by misrepresented data, disregarded readings, elimination of anomalous data, over exaggerated statistics and models, and a blind eye to temperature data over the last 850,000 years doesn't make someone a "Climate Change Denier"......

It means they simply don't believe the narrative being pushed by bad science brought about by misrepresented data, disregarded readings, elimination of anomalous data, over exaggerated statistics and models, and a blind eye to temperature data over the last 850,000 years.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: lostbook

lol, you are using the words "Climate Denier" and "Global Warming" as political phrases not scientific terms. That's where your confusion is, but that is the goal of indoctrination.

The earth always heats up and cools off. A warmer earth is better for humanity then a cooling earth.


How will a warmer Earth be better?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: network dude

Denying bad science brought about by misrepresented data, disregarded readings, elimination of anomalous data, over exaggerated statistics and models, and a blind eye to temperature data over the last 850,000 years doesn't make someone a "Climate Change Denier"......

It means they simply don't believe the narrative being pushed by bad science brought about by misrepresented data, disregarded readings, elimination of anomalous data, over exaggerated statistics and models, and a blind eye to temperature data over the last 850,000 years.


They are using climate change denial to advance their agenda's for financial gain. They are eliminating clean water laws put in place by the Obama administration, destroying State parks, Wildlife preserves, and the Arctic to drill for more oil, and why some people applaud this behavior is astounding to me. Does anyone remember why these laws and regulations were put in place to begin with?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Did you read my post or just trying to find a way to criticize it?

We can see plastic in the ocean but we cannot see all the CO2 and other stuff we pump into the atmosphere. It is signficant and will likely have consequences in terms of climate.

To pretend a 45% increase of CO2 levels, that is a direct result of human activity, is not signficant is embracing ignorance.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: lostbook

lol, you are using the words "Climate Denier" and "Global Warming" as political phrases not scientific terms. That's where your confusion is, but that is the goal of indoctrination.

The earth always heats up and cools off. A warmer earth is better for humanity then a cooling earth.


How will a warmer Earth be better?


Well I guess it will be better for people who want extreme weather, the rest of us won’t though



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: lostbook

lol, you are using the words "Climate Denier" and "Global Warming" as political phrases not scientific terms. That's where your confusion is, but that is the goal of indoctrination.

The earth always heats up and cools off. A warmer earth is better for humanity then a cooling earth.


How will a warmer Earth be better?


Was it ever warmer than it is now on this planet? Other than our discomfort, or our having to realize that building cities inches from an ever eroding ocean on a sandy platform was a really stupid idea, or having remnants from the last Ice Age melt, what damage would a warmer Earth do to the planet?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: lostbook

lol, you are using the words "Climate Denier" and "Global Warming" as political phrases not scientific terms. That's where your confusion is, but that is the goal of indoctrination.

The earth always heats up and cools off. A warmer earth is better for humanity then a cooling earth.


How will a warmer Earth be better?


Was it ever warmer than it is now on this planet? Other than our discomfort, or our having to realize that building cities inches from an ever eroding ocean on a sandy platform was a really stupid idea, or having remnants from the last Ice Age melt, what damage would a warmer Earth do to the planet?


Please don't answer my question with a question. First, Tell me why you think a warmer Earth would be better.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join