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

[Venant]

Who said anything about dying, as in right now? The climate has always been changing, but it's RAPIDLY changing now. It's ahead of everyones expectations. It's going to affect you more than shutting down some coal factories. If you bitch about maybe having to adapt to having to not taking the car everywhere you're in for a rough ride if the climate goes to hell.

We can all remember the hard lesson we learned when the ice caps melted and we lost Florida and San Francisco to the ocean in 2014. Now the climate change scientists, after being wrong in their predictions for several decades, don't even bother to make predictions anymore.

[Fadeslol]

No actually their really isnt. Denial is denial and it really doesnt matter what you want to tell yourself. Put aside the facts about human impact for a second. If im correct in underdtanding you or the others that share this belief are suggesting that since its not man made wed be better off simple going about our lives burrying our heads in the sand. Its the exact same end as if you out right denied it. Actually its sneakier then that. It absolves people of responsibility.

Fine if u want to say i'm a denial ok but to Man-Made climate change killing us all, not Climate Change.

[sarahtasher]

They predicted that in the documentary the Day After ? like in the documentary 2012 ?

[Glorious Leader]

Fine if u want to say i'm a denial ok but to Man-Made climate change killing us all, not Climate Change.

Its the same thing. Seriously you want to argue its not man made and theirfor absolve yourself and the species as a whole of responsibilty so you dont have to modify your lifestyle one iota. Either way its happening and denying we did it vs denying it even exists ends up with the same result. The planet is heating up.

[Youn]

I am not sure, I would say that Man-Made climate change isn't going to kill people off. That would be a very short sighted way to look at things. What my original argument of it's self correcting is as follows:

If we cut down too many trees, then not enough oxygen will be created And as a result we will live shorter lives.
If we pollute the air too much then the areas that are polluted will become unlivable for humans. In doing so, it will be overrun by either water or plant-life that will naturally clean back up the area. (See Chernobyl as an example of this).
If we melt the ice with pollutants, then the raising Seas will remove the offending large cities.
If we get too much population on the planet, either the actions of man or the actions of nature will fix the issue.

So, this comes down to things we cannot afford to do. That is mess up our ozone layer. Because, nothing will produce new elements for us to use on earth. And if we leak out atmosphere into space, we will cease to exist. At that point, climate change doesn't matter. Our planet will become just another rock in space.

[Orlong]

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.

Are we allowed to call them obstructionists then for the entire term? or is it only the republicans that can be obstructionists because they halt your vision

[alexw]

Again, Climate Change is the Reality. We always have Climate Change. Saying Man-Made climate change is going to kill us all is a Scientific Theory.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong Ice is not melting

See again, reality denial. Man made climate change is occurring. Either say that you accept that man made climate change is occurring, or say that you deny reality. It's one or the other. There is no middle ground.

[Fadeslol]

Its the same thing. Seriously you want to argue its not man made and theirfor absolve yourself and the species as a whole of responsibilty so you dont have to modify your lifestyle one iota. Either way its happening and denying we did it vs denying it even exists ends up with the same result. The planet is heating up.

No it's completely different. You're saying Man-Made climate change is going to kill us all. Climate Change happens all the time, it happened when earth was first created, it happened now, and it will after we die.

[cordrann]

Wrong, https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/upl...ate-Report.pdf

1) Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
2) The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
3) Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
4) Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
5) Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
6) Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
7) So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
8) A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
9) In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.
10) Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Read the name on the cover of that "Report"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

Dude is basically a right-wing lobbyist with no background in climate science. Just how credible do you think a report from him is exactly? Just because it tries to act like a serious paper doesn't mean it is.

[cubby]

Are we allowed to call them obstructionists then for the entire term? or is it only the republicans that can be obstructionists because they halt your vision

I'm pretty sure keeping a sitting President from nominating a Supreme Court Justice sets the new standard for obstructionist.

[Trump]

Either say that you accept that man made climate change is occurring, or say that you deny reality. It's one or the other.

"Man made" climate change is bullshit. Sure, mankind may have exacerbated the issue but this planet is going to do what it wants to do and nothing as insignificant as some bipedal dipshits is going to matter at all.

Also, - to see this much hate for Pruitt from the left assures me that Trump made the right pick.

[Orlong]

I'm pretty sure keeping a sitting President from nominating a Supreme Court Justice sets the new standard for obstructionist.

They didnt keep him from nominating a judge. He nominated one. The Senate said they didnt approve of him and as such he didnt get confirmed. The Senate isnt a rubber stamp for the President. President Obama never nominated another person for the Senate to consider. Had he nominated someone else, the Senate would look at him or her. Chances are he would never nominate an acceptable judge though

[Cthulhu 2020]

Climate change deniers (those who deny anthropogenic climate change) tend to say "FOLLOW THE MONEY!" as if it's some kind of convincing argument against climate change...

Yeah, the money has been followed. It's typically the "scientists" (usually with geography, psychology, or theater degrees) who are getting paid tens if not hundreds of thousands to push the agenda that it's fake.

And of course they'll point to grants as if that's some kind of thing that the scientists just get to pocket... lol. Grants go directly to the educational institution they work for, who then pay the scientists a SALARY to do their job, which is the research empirical evidence, and present whatever the results are. I don't get why deniers seem to have an issue with someone getting paid a salary to do their job, meanwhile the "scientist" deniers they like to link already get a salary then get additional bribes on top of that.

It's some pretty extreme cognitive dissonance.

[Bodakane]

Wrong, https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/upl...ate-Report.pdf

1) Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming
2) The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
3) Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
4) Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
5) Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
6) Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
7) So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
8) A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
9) In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.
10) Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

lol. You give that bullshit as proof?

This guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

In April 2009, despite having no formal education in the field of climate science, Morano founded and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). In November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the Climatic Research Unit email controversy story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story was subsequently picked up by James Delingpole.[4] In 2016 Morano co-wrote and presented the CFACT-funded documentary Climate Hustle.

isn't a scientist, climate or otherwise. He doesn't source his numbers/data anywhere.

[Trump]

I'm pretty sure keeping a sitting President from nominating a Supreme Court Justice sets the new standard for obstructionist.

No one stopped Obama from nominating a Supreme Court Justice. He nominated Garland.

[God Save The King]

I was listening to a report on this guy on NPR;

This guy thinks the state EPA should be the one making the decisions not the federal EPA, and it seems likely he will curtail the federal EPA. From my perspective, the interesting thing about the way that works, is that the most populous state gets to make the national policy.

The CA EPA basically sets the fuel efficiency of cars, because car manufacturers sell more cars in CA, and they can't make two types of cars, one for CA and one for every other state.

CA had to get special permission from the federal EPA to have rules that were actually more strict. So if he removes federal EPA restrictions, expect the CA EPA to be the one that sets the rules for a lot of sectors, not just cars and appliances.

As I told my roommate, our state is going to be one of the better ones to ride out the next four years. (I'm in CA)

[Fadeslol]

See again, reality denial. Man made climate change is occurring. Either say that you accept that man made climate change is occurring, or say that you deny reality. It's one or the other. There is no middle ground.

Where did i say Man Made climate change doesn't exist? I say it's not going to kill us all. There is a complete differences.

[Bodakane]

They didnt keep him from nominating a judge. He nominated one. The Senate said they didnt approve of him and as such he didnt get confirmed. The Senate isnt a rubber stamp for the President. President Obama never nominated another person for the Senate to consider. Had he nominated someone else, the Senate would look at him or her. Chances are he would never nominate an acceptable judge though

That's not true at all. They didn't approve or disapprove of the person Obama nominated. They didn't even address it. They just ignored it. That's obstructionist. Also you forget that virtually every Republican in congress signed the Norquist Pledge which was an actual pledge to be obstructionist.

I'd point out that you have no leg to stand on, but that seems to be the case with your opinions.

[sarahtasher]

There is a fallacy used by all deniers

''Think for yourself''

In theory, that' s a great advice. In 2016,this is also an useless one in most technical fields.

I admit it : like presumably 99% of people here (99% ? ) I'm not a climatologist. Therefore, I have to rely on climatologists to have an opinion on climate matters. Likewise, as I'm not a virologist, I have to rely on professionals about vaccines. Of course, I have a very rough understanding of how those things work-the kind of understanding that can be grasped by Wikipedia or high-school grade classes, but that is not the equivalent of a PHDs in those fields.

Yes, people. There are very few polymaths and renaissance men today. Technical and scientific fields require expertise and you can't think you are the equivalent of a Harvard graduate after watching a YouTube video.

[Independent voter]

Here is bloomberg's "what's warming the world"

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ing-the-world/

It's a conservative business publication.