Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.

[Youn]

All navigators understood the earth was round by the fact you could sail away from a coast line and the coast disappear under the horizon. This also meant that you could effectively hide behind the curvature of the earth. Simple geometry also allowed them to figure out the circumference.

[Halyon]

Yup. I don't worry about protecting nature because I fear for nature. I worry about it because nature will always act in a way to rectify the problem. What that means is you don't want to be the problem....

We live on a planet whose environment is tailored to suit us. The odds that randomly messing with said environment will miraculously not be detrimental to our wellbeing are slim to none.

...I'm sorry what? 'Nature' is not an entity, it cannot think, it's just a contemporary state that is formed by external versus internal processes... Humans being the external atm. Yes, plants and animals can adapt TO A DEGREE, humans can adapt TO A DEGREE, nature is going to be unable to adapt very soon, with how we have treated it. Pollution, harvesting finite resources, rapid expansion and multiplying, choking out forests and wildlife...

Nature is OUR responsibility, and if we don't take care of it, we will all suffer and die for it.

[Independent voter]

Okay, this graph isn't even about global warming but it supports it.

In California there are Bristlecone pines that live 5,000 years or more. The distance between the tree rings shows how much rainfall is in the area. That spike at the end of the graph around 1850 correlates exactly with the rise of industry around the world. Increase in C02, warmer weather, more rain in a very dry area.

To deny something is going on seems unscientific.

[Themius]

I don't think you quite understand how many more deer and wolves there were then....

Now I truly don't think you understand how cows bodies work and how they differ from deer and wolves.

[Saucexorzski]

Okay, this graph isn't even about global warming but it supports it.

In California there are Bristlecone pines that live 5,000 years or more. The distance between the tree rings shows how much rainfall is in the area. That spike at the end of the graph around 1850 correlates exactly with the rise of industry around the world. Increase in C02, warmer weather, more rain in a very dry area.

To deny something is going on seems unscientific.

Look at those trees capitalizing on the changes in climate!

[Themius]

I believe the climate changes. I am not so sure we have as huge of an impact as we might think. I also am open to me being wrong. As a general rule, I follow the money and whoever is getting the most, they are probably wrong or "pushing an agenda." And there seems to be way more money to be gained for "settling" the science in favor of climate change than denying it.

I don't understand how your second question fits into this (granted, I haven't read the whole threat). Wasn't the EPA the ones to claim the air was safe after the attacks?

You don't thikn it's at all odd that the majority of scientist against climate change just so happen to be sponsored by industries that are major pollutants? If you want to follow the money why don't you follow the money?

[Jibjub]

So let's say human caused climate change is false. The worst we do is create renewables energy, and a cleaner environment.

If it's right, and we do nothing we create massive migration issues down the road, and make parts of the planet uninhabitable.

I have no problems with this logic, BUT this costs money. And somebody has to pay for it. We're already trillions in debt with a crumbling infrastructure and still slightly limping economy. So it becomes an order of priorities.

But what we can't have is the left pushing that "Climate Change is a Thing" and if you voice any dissent you are either silenced, your career is ruined, or you are a bigot/uneducated/etc. Science is a constant pursuit and, as history has showed time and time again, is in constant flux. Everything is settled until it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't thikn it's at all odd that the majority of scientist against climate change just so happen to be sponsored by industries that are major pollutants? If you want to follow the money why don't you follow the money?

That's fair. No hands are clean in this. But I am just arguing that you can't ostracize or even immediately dismiss someone for having skeptical or dissenting positions. Because if history has proven anything, it's that the science is NEVER truly settled on anything. We still know very little about a great lot of things, in fact.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I believe the climate changes. I am not so sure we have as huge of an impact as we might think. I also am open to me being wrong. As a general rule, I follow the money and whoever is getting the most, they are probably wrong or "pushing an agenda." And there seems to be way more money to be gained for "settling" the science in favor of climate change than denying it.

I don't understand how your second question fits into this (granted, I haven't read the whole threat). Wasn't the EPA the ones to claim the air was safe after the attacks?

That is crazy talk. If you genuinely follow the money, you'll look to the cost that would be incurred if we actually have to clean our shit up. Fossil fuel companies would be the biggest ones hit, but all sorts of manufacturing companies would also be affected. Those people have a much bigger financial interest in the matter than some climate scientists and green energy businesses.

Here's the thing. Let's assume there's no consensus of any kind, and we just don't know whether or not anthropogenic climiate change (ACC) is happening. Let's also assume we can take two different courses of action: do nothing, or act to prevent further ACC.

If ACC is not happening and we act to prevent it, the worst cast scenario is that we spend a lot of money transitioning to clean energy, businesses have to clean up their emissions, and the price of some things go up, in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We lose some things, but we do gain a cleaner environment and quality of life goes up slightly. Expensive and inconvenient, but not without its benefits. We adapt, and life goes on.

If ACC is happening and we never act to prevent it, the worst case scenario is that everyone fucking dies.

If you actually believe in rational thinking, you have to realize that the cost of being wrong in this case is too severe to take chances. And so far, there hasn't been a whole lot of evidence proving that ACC is not happening, and a lot proving it is.

[JohnBrown1917]

I believe the climate changes. I am not so sure we have as huge of an impact as we might think. I also am open to me being wrong. As a general rule, I follow the money and whoever is getting the most, they are probably wrong or "pushing an agenda." And there seems to be way more money to be gained for "settling" the science in favor of climate change than denying it.

I don't understand how your second question fits into this (granted, I haven't read the whole threat). Wasn't the EPA the ones to claim the air was safe after the attacks?

How exactly? Just look at how hard the big corps are against more regulations.

[cubby]

The Sierra Club, an organization that protects the environment, said: "It's like putting an arsonist in charge of putting out fires."

There were a bunch of fake news stories about Trump's EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, director pick, but this is legit. It's also a worse pick than the fake news stories.

I hope the Democrats in Congress can block him.

The GOP Senate, in anticipation of mid-term gains, might actually kill the filibuster altogether. I would like to think that the Dems are going to try and block/delay as much as possible, but the Machiavellian nature of the GOP makes it almost certain that those tools will no longer be available.

[Thepersona]

I don't think you quite understand how many more deer and wolves there were then....

not as much as cows, though

[Dsonsion]

the climate is not changing any faster then ever before, a giant rock could change the climate in 1 day on a global scale.....

CLIMATE HAS NO NORMAL RATE OF CHANGE! it just changes!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

what keeps this planet warm? THE FUCKING SUN!

any reasonable person would look at the sun has the first major factor, politicians pay people to ignore the sun and look at humans as the problem. Some models even totally ignore the sun having any factor while claiming man is destroying the planet.


like i said I AM FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIROMENT.... i am not for a political scam that makes the rich richer by taxing people through fear.

AKA PAY THIS CARBON TAX SO WE CAN SAVE DAH PLANET! *mean while i am gona go fly on my private jet around the world*

Your posts hurt my eyes, but even worse, they hurt my sanity. Let me ask you, do you have any competence on the matter? I mean, at least some physics knowledge?

[nacixems]

Because if history has proven anything, it's that the science is NEVER truly settled on anything. We still know very little about a great lot of things, in fact.

This... a very profound statement. the problem is, the far left wont hear it, they want to push "their" agenda as do the far right.

My issue is that common sense and peoples lives are destroyed based on a blanket statement or some over powered epa offical that just wants to show how powerful they are. I'm not saying alot of regulations are good or have helped, but a lot of them are hurting and purely done for half-truths and no one is taking common sense into the mix. It needs to be brought back under control. imo

[TheFuse]

the climate is not changing any faster then ever before, a giant rock could change the climate in 1 day on a global scale.....

CLIMATE HAS NO NORMAL RATE OF CHANGE! it just changes!

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

what keeps this planet warm? THE FUCKING SUN!

any reasonable person would look at the sun has the first major factor, politicians pay people to ignore the sun and look at humans as the problem. Some models even totally ignore the sun having any factor while claiming man is destroying the planet.


like i said I AM FOR PROTECTING THE ENVIROMENT.... i am not for a political scam that makes the rich richer by taxing people through fear.

AKA PAY THIS CARBON TAX SO WE CAN SAVE DAH PLANET! *mean while i am gona go fly on my private jet around the world*

Why do I get the feeling that you're a Trump supporter?

[Raelbo]

The problem I have with the green movement at this point is that it's a constant witch hunt for a economic target backed up by soft science that continually fails to deliver on its claims.

That's only because the vast majority of the population are scientifically illiterate. You don't understand the science. All you know is that the scientists are telling you that you need to go through some form of inconvenience in order to fix the problem you don't understand.

So the human mind does what it does best: Doubt that which would be inconvenient in favour of that which you know will benefit you here and now.

This theory on nature constantly self-correcting being the reason why climate change models are never accurate sounds more like theory jumping ahead of evidence.

And herein lies the problem. It is human nature to optimistically look for alternative, convenient explanations no matter how unlikely they are, when faced with a far more likely, but inconvenient explanation.

[JohnBrown1917]

This... a very profound statement. the problem is, the far left wont hear it, they want to push "their" agenda as do the far right.

My issue is that common sense and peoples lives are destroyed based on a blanket statement or some over powered epa offical that just wants to show how powerful they are. I'm not saying alot of regulations are good or have helped, but a lot of them are hurting and purely done for half-truths and no one is taking common sense into the mix. It needs to be brought back under control. imo

How many times does it have to be said that climate change is a-political? And even in the US, its the center and center-right who make these regulations.

[caervek]

Now think of how a creationist would respond to his half of the analogy....

Just because two people would respond the same way to two differing scenarios doesn't mean the people or scenarios are similar.
I.E if you ask a street sweeper and a nuclear physicist if they know how to do their job both would (hopefully) say yes, that doesn't mean their jobs are the same or that they could both do each other's job.

In other words, once the climate deniers realised that their argument was so bad that only a complete moron would buy it, they simply moved the goalpost. Most climate denialists aren't in it for the truth or for science. Their belief is tailored for their own personal convenience. Better to deny the obvious reality in favour of not moving out of one's comfort zone. Once it becomes impossible to deny that reality, shift the argument to another that allows you to stay in your comfort zone.

You basically appear to be arguing here, that people who don't believe in the man made climate change hypothesis are just climate change deniers who changed their opinion after denying climate change became unsustainable, this is quite frankly nonsense.

Outside the USA people who deny climate change have always been a tiny minority who were ridiculed by those who believe it is/isn't caused by man, the only reason they have any ground to stand on in the USA is because the pro-climate change crowd choose to brand those skeptical of man made climate change as climate change deniers too, as they cannot defeat them in an argument so are forced to try and ridicule them into irrelevance (ironically causing more damage to their own position as the solid foundation for being skeptical CC is man made then appears to the uneducated eye to also apply to the deniers).

Oh there is plenty of substance. Just not enough to prove it beyond all doubt.

Or beyond all reasonable doubt, or even beyond acceptable theory.

To put it in perspective, nobody has ever seen an electron, the only proof we have of their existence is seeing how they affect other things. This is proof enough to classify their existence as fact. Yet we cannot reach even this stage of proof with man made climate change, we have temperatures plateauing or even dropping while the theory says they should be going up, etc (I.E the coldest recorded temperatures in London occurred while the pollution was at it's worst).

It's an interesting trick this argument of yours, because like any good illusion, it relies on sleight of hand - keeping the audience focussed where you want it, instead of looking at the actual reality.

Like I said it was the pro man made CC crowd that started lumping CC deniers and man made CC skeptics into the same group to try and ridicle arguments they couldn't counter...

What you fail to mention is that Man made climate change has to compete with another hypothesis: Climate change is entirely natural.

A hypothesis with much more substance considering it's been going on for 4.5 billion years. Over that time temperatures have been much higher/lower, they have risen/fallen much faster, etc.

Essentially what you are arguing is that because we cannot be 100% certain that man is the cause, we should assume we're not?

Lol, no. There are no percentages with right/wrong, a coin cannot land 70% on heads, I am not saying for certain that climate change isn't man made (it may very well be) just that it's currently 2016 and as of right now there isn't enough proof that it is to treat that as the most likely reason when CC being natural still has more weight behind it. Hell many pro man made CC articles still cite the now debunked "hockey stick" graph as their main source!

[Tijuana]

not as much as cows, though

I think you fail to understand just how much wildlife there is in areas where man is not.

The problem with this issue, is there is so much hyperbole, it's hard to take it serous.

[LaserSharkDFB]

This... a very profound statement. the problem is, the far left wont hear it, they want to push "their" agenda as do the far right.

My issue is that common sense and peoples lives are destroyed based on a blanket statement or some over powered epa offical that just wants to show how powerful they are. I'm not saying alot of regulations are good or have helped, but a lot of them are hurting and purely done for half-truths and no one is taking common sense into the mix. It needs to be brought back under control. imo

Common sense is often very, very stupid, and at the very best of times is largely subjective. True, science is never 100% settled, but that's not its job. The job of science is to provide the best model of how things work based on the evidence available. The more we learn about climate change, the more we realize that yes, the change we're experiencing really does seem to be incredibly unusual, to the point that there is no record of a similar change for hundreds of thousands of years. We also know that the penalty for being wrong could be catastrophic.

[Thepersona]

I think you fail to understand just how much wildlife there is in areas where man is not.

The problem with this issue, is there is so much hyperbole, it's hard to take it serous.

no, i'm not.
i think that you fail to understand that 300 years ago there wasnt as much cattle as there is now, and adding to that, there was much more forests and other carbong dumping ecosystems that were converted to grazing zones for that said cattle