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

a reply to: jrod

I know that the answers now-a-days on ATS are rude, but the plastic in the oceans is for another thread. Just read between the line and see the control. but be fair and make your own thread if your off the topic.

a reply to: lostbook

I don't know. I grew up in Cleveland. So yea, warmer is always better than the # I dealt with. It's why I moved south. Looking for a warmer climate. Now your turn.

If you look at a temperature graph and compare it to the times when major civilizations flourished, there's actually a pretty significant coorelation. Higher temperatures tend to increase rainfall and make some deserts and tundra arable again, making them capable of supporting larger populations. During times of higher temperatures, less oil and coal and wood are burned to create heat in higher latitudes, reducing environmental damage.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I don't know. I grew up in Cleveland. So yea, warmer is always better than the # I dealt with. It's why I moved south. Looking for a warmer climate. Now your turn.

The earth warming will give us more extreme weather, you know what extreme weather is?

That what happens when you put a complete moron in charge.
Stunned stupid, some of you are

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.

Ummm...we know...we know...you leftists are in love with labeling...and it is used derogatorily...

You knew that...

Besides...whatever happened to anthropogenic global warming...?

Not catchy enough...?

It's juvenile...just as Network Dude stated...it's designed to denigrate and cast aspersion...so grow the eff up and stop calling people names...you...you...prog...




YouSir

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.

Ummm...bore repeating...




YouSir

From my daily news feeds there is no such animal as climate concensus, every week a new paper on climate, for, against, middle of the road, too much ice, not enough ice, temperature graphs up and down like a switch back, we need more CO2, we need to stop producing CO2 (like that could happen) winters are too cold, winters are too warm, summers are too.... sod it, its just weather.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I don't know. I grew up in Cleveland. So yea, warmer is always better than the # I dealt with. It's why I moved south. Looking for a warmer climate. Now your turn.

So many ways it could be bad. Weather and weather extremes will be worse, vegetation will be less nutritious, warming will melt more and more glaciers thus pumping a lot of fresh water into a salt water system which will disrupt the nutrient dispersal in the oceans and kill a lot of Sea life, food shortages, pestilence, and whatever else you could think of. Also consider the fact that the world population is increasing and this only compounds the situation. Not saying that I have all of the answers but this is what I see through my lens.

originally posted by: YouSir

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.

Ummm...we know...we know...you leftists are in love with labeling...and it is used derogatorily...

You knew that...

Besides...whatever happened to anthropogenic global warming...?

Not catchy enough...?

It's juvenile...just as Network Dude stated...it's designed to denigrate and cast aspersion...so grow the eff up and stop calling people names...you...you...prog...

YouSir

Once again I'm not labeling; it's in your head. Just because it's your reality doesn't make it my reality.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I don't know. I grew up in Cleveland. So yea, warmer is always better than the # I dealt with. It's why I moved south. Looking for a warmer climate. Now your turn.

So many ways it could be bad. Weather and weather extremes will be worse, vegetation will be less nutritious, warming will melt more and more glaciers thus pumping a lot of fresh water into a salt water system which will disrupt the nutrient dispersal in the oceans and kill a lot of Sea life, food shortages, pestilence, and whatever else you could think of. Also consider the fact that the world population is increasing and this only compounds the situation. Not saying that I have all of the answers but this is what I see through my lens.

but this is what I see through my lens

Your lens is clouded . Clean em and then take another look

a reply to: ICycle2

Again did you read my post?

It was a reply to someone claiming humans think highly of ourselves to believe we can change nature. Pointing out something we can see is a good way to show we do influence nature.

However what is unseen, the gasses we pump into the atmosphere is likely causing much bigger problems.

If you believe my post is irrelevant to the thread, alert the mods....they will irrelevant posts that contribute to thread drift.

a reply to: YouSir

Anf turning a blind eye to the evidence, the CO2 and CH4 concentrations while repeating myths and exaggerations about the reality of observed human induced climate change does indeed make you a science denier.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I don't know. I grew up in Cleveland. So yea, warmer is always better than the # I dealt with. It's why I moved south. Looking for a warmer climate. Now your turn.

So many ways it could be bad. Weather and weather extremes will be worse, vegetation will be less nutritious, warming will melt more and more glaciers thus pumping a lot of fresh water into a salt water system which will disrupt the nutrient dispersal in the oceans and kill a lot of Sea life, food shortages, pestilence, and whatever else you could think of. Also consider the fact that the world population is increasing and this only compounds the situation. Not saying that I have all of the answers but this is what I see through my lens.

but this is what I see through my lens

Your lens is clouded . Clean em and then take another look

I'm not a scientist but I try to keep an ear to what they are saying. What makes you say that I am wrong? Are you a real scientist?

So no answer for what the ideal temperature should be...On what basis is Pruitt's statement unreasonable again? Certainly not science.

a reply to: lostbook

He's not wrong:

In an interview with KSNV in Las Vegas, Pruitt conceded that climate change is a reality and humans have contributed to it “to a certain degree.” However, the EPA administrator cast doubt on its negative long-term implications.

“Is it an existential threat? Is it something that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have? I mean, we know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100? In the year 2018? I mean it’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

source

I figured that folks like you (the type that use terms like "climate [c]hange denier") would be happy to see someone who dismissed it before acknowledge it now.

In any case, his quote that I cited is correct, and that's not denial, that's skepticism, and that's the approach most of us who you would probably label a "denier" take with this topic, and I would argue that arrogance is definitely a quality that most AGW proponents have in common.

originally posted by: Templeton
So no answer for what the ideal temperature should be...On what basis is Pruitt's statement unreasonable again? Certainly not science.

Don't you know that it should be exactly what it was at the time the whole AGW theory started going mainstream? I mean, some may call that an extremely interesting coincidence, while even others may call that a fabricated load of nonsensical garbage.

Remember that every single predictive computer model based on AGW assumptions is always, 100%, proven to be over-inflated hyperbole (maybe barring some done in the basement of grandma's house that I haven't been privy to looking at), so any "scientist" who plays soothsayer and fortune teller (two obviously very scientific professions) should be immediately labeled as a quack and disregarded.

They and we just don't know enough about the catalysts of global climate change to know for certain about anything, let alone what a temperature at a given point in the 4.5-billion-years that the earth has been around.

But, yes, let's listen to the scientists who scream out loud about the past 150 years.

CO2 levels rise and fall naturally, so even if humans contributed no CO2 to the environment , CO2 levels would naturally increase and decrease significantly.

It was a natural increase in CO2 levels that caused global temps to rise melting the glaciers and ending the last ice age 11,000 years ago, no humans were involved in that CO2 increase.


www.scientificamerican.com...


phys.org...

Rapid warming is not good for us. The Arctic has trapped millions of gallons of mercury and I don't think anyone will claim releasing that into the food supply is a good thing.

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.

Yeah, science.

Meh, you mean the arrogant assholes that think they know wtf is going on at any one time in the history of the planet, by using thermometers in parking lots.

97% of them, right?

Or is it 98%?

Let the believers pay for it.

I'll keep recycling, thank you.