EPA chief Pruitt reveals Trump climate policy is built on a lie

From ThinkProgress:
thinkprogress.org...

Pruitt says humans 'most flourished’ during warming trends. Science says otherwise.

We have the head of the EPA who is no admitting man made climate change is happening but it is for our own good. This contradicts previous claims that man made climate change is not real.

What is important to understand is Pruitt is a promoter of fossil fuels and is working to rollback US climate action.

a reply to: jrod


You're brave to post this on ATS....

But yeah, I don't understand why anybody believes a word Pruitt says, as you say, he's an oil company man.

I expect we're seeing the evolution of how climate change deniers will alter their thinking. First they said it's not real, but as the scientific evidence becomes harder and harder for them to ignore, they'll shift to 'Oh well it's not a problem anyway, I'd like to be a bit warmer.'

No doubt when we're all starving on a dying planet they'll be saying 'Oh well, I wanted to turn to cannibalism anyway.'

Climate change isn't settled science anyway.

a reply to: jrod

Gotta love a website that links to itself within the article to prove its claims.

That article focus on stability, not temperature, and that graph that they use is ridiculously cherry-picked to make it the most alarming depiction of recent years as it could be, as if the mean temperature between 1960 and 1991 is some magical metric to which the climate after the Younger Dryas should be compared.

In unaltered reality, though, this is what temperatures looked like before, during, and after the YD period:

It's not some relatively super-smooth curve, it has dramatic fluctuations within the entirety of the time period following the Younger Dryas. But the reality IS that civilizations have flourished in the millennia since that time, and not so much before, and if you consider the aftermath of that period, one can't help but notice a dramatic increase of relative stability of a warmer climate. But, of course, we all know that even since the YD period, we have had some very, very cold times and some very very warm times.

So, please, in all of the wisdom of the linked article, please show me wherein lies this "lie" that your thread title cites.

You berate other for invoking the Gore fear factor, yet you're basing a thread on a "ThinkProgress" article that cites misleading graphs (that, of course, MUST put a scary prediction line in bright red going straight up) and prints quotes that just have to bring the Koch Brothers into it.

And then, at the bottom, in a story that says the EPA director is lying about how humans flourished most during warming trends, there's this:

In fact, as climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe explained last month, “There is no one perfect temperature for the earth, but there is for us humans, and that’s the temperature we’ve had over the last few thousands of years when we built our civilization, agriculture, economy, and infrastructure.”

This literally says exactly the same thing if you put the larger climate picture into the story, and not just make assumptions as to what one interprets Mr. Pruitt as meaning.

Seriously, she's saying exactly the same thing as Pruitt. Did you think that we wouldn't recognize this or something? Why else would you post such a blatantly biased and deceptive article?

Caveat: I may or may not be on here again today after I post this, so if you respond and I don't, it's not because I'm avoiding a discussion.

We have always known about climate change.

Its the global warming due to fossil fuel, and pay me money and we can fix it part that is utter nonsense from the minds of sick twisted money grubbing psycho hogs.

a reply to: jrod

That's an Awesome Hockey stick chart in the article.

Blows away Mann's chart like it was nothing.

Lol

a reply to: jrod


What does President Trump have to do with Climate change? Phucked up title you got there.

I don't know what Trump's policy is, all I hear him say is that he doesn't believe in 'it'.

'Climate Change' is an expected event no matter which way you cut it, Global Warming as given, is debateable.
However the use of fossil fuels is polluting, and not something to be promoted in this day and age, and by the same token exaggerating the the capability of new tech at this time is no help either, but is a pocket filler for many.
I think both sides of the debate should take a step back and analyse properly just what is going on.....there's a lot of honesty that needs to be brought to the table all round.

This

Take the windmills they said....It's good for the environment, they said...you'll collect a dividend check for 2 years, they said....What they DIDN'T say was the windmills put up in Roxbury, Farmington, Wilton etc......would never introduce a dime to the townsfolk in energy savings (only a 2 year gap check)...the energy is funneled out to New York, while locals have their evenings disrupted with the constant humm and whirr of the windmills....and now after a few years, dividend checks are gone and the windmills have desecrated the landscape and interfere with the silence of a great summer evening....welcome to Maine, we're open for business :-(

It is futile to "build" on something that is always changing... Just my 2¢.

Climate constantly changes. Cow burps and cars are just a fraction of the whole picture.

So if Pruitt had said "humans 'most flourished’ during STABLE warming trends" then Trump wouldn't have lied?

The entire global warming/climate change hysteria is built on a lie.

A lie that made Gore very,very rich.

a reply to: Templeton
a reply to: carewemust

The title of the thread is the title the linked article. Maybe read the entire article before you question where I got the OP from.

Trump has been on record saying he does not believe in man made climate change, as has Pruitt. Now Pruitt is back peddling and saying it exists but thinks it is beneficial for us.

a reply to: neo96

Yet we were still being warned about global warming before anyone(except maybe people in Tennessee) knew who Al Gore was, this was the late 1980's.

To claim this is lie made by Gore tells me you are extremely ignorant or someone trying to spread lies and disinfo!

a reply to: jrod

Hmmm, is not that a nice smell?

I can smell it now - I detect a perfect marriage of science, politics and confusion.

Poor climatologists probably can't get a degree today without learning about the latest political convolution.

a reply to: jrod

And ?

Why do people act like the EPA and green legislation doesn't exist ?

The 'gubberments' been in charge of it for the last 60 years.

originally posted by: jrod

To claim this is lie made by Gore tells me you are extremely ignorant or someone trying to spread lies and disinfo!

I fail to see how you reach such an extreme and rather silly conclusion?

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: jrod

To claim this is lie made by Gore tells me you are extremely ignorant or someone trying to spread lies and disinfo!

I fail to see how you reach such an extreme and rather silly conclusion?

Because the science is settled!

Just never read the scientific method that says it's never settled.

a reply to: neo96

What astonishes me is that this scientific method, and lack of settled science, is particularly evident and accepted in Physics. To us physicists it's actually normal.

But in politicized climatology, suddenly this normal Science changing nature is shocking and theories suddenly take the form of ideologies.

Politics should have never coupled with climatology.