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

[Jessicka]

No I understand that but i was referring to the petition. BTW i can say green companies are funding scientist to say Man-Made Climate Change is going to kill us all.

Please point me in the direction of those rich green companies, getting money from research councils is hard and I have some colleagues who would be more than grateful for it.

[Bodakane]

That should have happened a long time ago. The United States is no longer the European Union protoype mark I; it's a single, unified country rather than a collection of bitter territories who only gathered together to protect themselves from foreign invaders.

Well, it should be a single, unified country. But with people like you around, it never will be. Even though I'm sure you think of yourself as a "PROUD AMURIK'N!"

Wait....what?????

[JohnBrown1917]

Oh shucks he's not in the climate change cult? Sounds like he's a smart person already

Must be a big cult if most of the western world is in it.

[drakensoul]

Wait....what?????

I think he was saying we should elect based on the popular vote.

[cubby]

"Which is man-made climate change and global warming leading to disastrous results. " which is completely false.
Man-Made Climate Change is not going to kill us all.

Climate Change happens all the time that's the only fact hypothesis.

You're still not getting even the basics, and you're ignoring every effort to improve your knowledge and analytical base. I'm not sure why you want to do that - several people in this thread alone are attempting to help you on your journey of knowledge - yet you just keep ignoring them and slamming your head against the same brick wall.

Why? Don't you even understand the basics of the scientific method? Or is that man-made as well?

(let's see if he catches it)

[Bodakane]

I think he was saying we should elect based on the popular vote.

Whatever, i'm just curious as to why he said what he said about me.

[Annoying]

1) Sorry i should have linked where to watch the video.

So now you're back to studies, not Scientist. How many Scientist are there with all the studies. I can have 1 study with 5k scientist and there can be 4k studies with 1 scientist for each. So then it's 5k scientist to 4k scientist.

- - - Updated - - -



Wrong, it's not established science. It's a hypothesis. Fact is Climate Change always happens. Hypothesis is that Made-Man Climate Change is going to harm the world to death.

Studies... of what the scientists themselves wrote. What you're asking is right there: "In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."
That's 1400 papers written by 1400 scientists, self-rating themselves as 97.2% in agreement with AGCC. What, is 1400 not large enough? 1400 people, as a sample size, is enough people to represent the population of the USA, much less the amount of climate scientists. That is an overwhelming consensus.

As for the second part, you can call it a hypothesis all you want, but it's accepted in the scientific community as a theory. It has backing. It's been proven. There are very few journal entries refuting points, and nothing contradicting the theory in the general.

[Nadiru]

So I make a post saying "I don't really see why people don't accept that humans can affect climate change; it seems fairly intuitive."

And your response, as I gather it 5 posts later, was "I think it does affect climate change, I just don't care because I alone and others like me have $500 implements that can reverse it completely unlike the EPA."

In that case, Beijing is calling. They'd like to offer to hire you for a few billion dollars.

It's literally iron filings and limestone gravel. The EPA and Beijing won't, or maybe can't do it because their jurisdiction ends at their territorial waters claim.

[Fadeslol]

Studies... of what the scientists themselves wrote. What you're asking is right there: "In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."
That's 1400 papers written by 1400 scientists, self-rating themselves as 97.2% in agreement with AGCC. What, is 1400 not large enough? 1400 people, as a sample size, is enough people to represent the population of the USA, much less the amount of climate scientists. That is an overwhelming consensus.

As for the second part, you can call it a hypothesis all you want, but it's accepted in the scientific community as a theory. It has backing. It's been proven. There are very few journal entries refuting points, and nothing contradicting the theory in the general.

Again, no. Ok so you linked 1400 scientist?

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ew_OISM150.pdf

31k scientist

[Doctor Funkenstein]

I think he was saying we should elect based on the popular vote.

I'm saying that states acting like they're countries and free to make their own ridiculous laws and regulations needs to go bye-bye. The United States is (should be) a single country, not a conglomerate of micro-nations with a free trade agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever, i'm just curious as to why he said what he said about me.

Because of what you said. It was even quoted. "I'M AN AMURIKAN (but screw America; my state is more important, and you'll never take my liberties you filthy government types!!! God bless America)!"

[Fadeslol]

Please point me in the direction of those rich green companies, getting money from research councils is hard and I have some colleagues who would be more than grateful for it.

The whole point was i can smear studies or even a person.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not how scientific studies and funding works.

Again please which petition is this?

- - - Updated - - -



You cant. They werent. If its the same petition im thinking of youre likely to find many fake signatures.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM...on-Project.htm

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Totally false, trying to smear

[Annoying]

Again, no. Ok so you linked 1400 scientist?

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ew_OISM150.pdf

31k scientist

1400 climate scientists. Vs 31k unspecified scientists.
With 1 article, that wasn't published in a journal, that cites 132 references at the end. So yeah, 1400 peer reviewed journal papers from climate researchers vs the paper with no peer review with 132 citations. Seems pretty solid to me.

[drakensoul]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Totally false, trying to smear

I can print out 10,000 copies of that and mail it in and, poof, it just became 40,000 scientists.

ONE HUNDRED MILLION scientists?!

[Grimbold21]

A CC thread going on 25 pages. This might be a new record.

[LaserSharkDFB]

"Which is man-made climate change and global warming leading to disastrous results. " which is completely false.
Man-Made Climate Change is not going to kill us all.

Climate Change happens all the time that's the only fact.

Fades? Can I call you Fades? Fades.

Please, please listen carefully.

Climate change, meaning the change of climate on Earth, does happen all the time. You are correct.

Why does it change? There are different causes for the change. Some are natural, such as solar, volcanic and oceanic causes, and some are man-made, such as deforestation and, yes, release of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels.

When people talk about climate change, 99% of the time they are talking about man-made climate change, since we can't really do anything about the natural kind. So correcting people that use the term climate change to mean man-made climate change is not helpful at all. Please stop doing it. Also you're using the 'man-made climate change will kill us all' strawman again.

There are climate changes happening now that can be directly linked to man-made causes. There is plentiful evidence that this is the case.

Now, you really have to think about this and answer this question: why do you think man-made causes of climate change cannot lead to disastrous results? You keep ignoring this question whenever it comes up, and it's actually pretty important. I'm not even asking you to say that it is happening, just that it could.

[Teleros]

I guess that's one solution to the Fermi Paradox. Civilizations at some point elect politicians, who don't know what "existential" means in "existential threat", to manage existential threats.

There's a non-zero chance an asteroid smacks into Earth and wipes out all human life.

Now, let's use global warming policy-making for this...

1. Spend a few trillion dollars a year on anti-asteroid defences, science, and statistical manipulations masquerading as science.
2. Demand more power for the UN over national governments.
3. Sign up to treaties that prevent coastal countries from doing anything to protect from tidal waves caused by asteroid impacts. Insist inland countries do it instead.
4. Brand anyone sceptical of the severity of the threat an "asteroid denier" to link them to Holocaust denial.
5. Cut off funding for anyone sceptical & stop their work getting peer-reviewed.
6. Muzzle them in the media.
7. Mutter darkly about Big Mining funding a vast web of anti-asteroid propagandists because they want to mine the asteroid *when* it hits. Or something.
8. Brand any website etc that listens to them as "fake news".
9. Quiz 10,000 scientists in related fields about it. Strip out the 9,500 who aren't "asteroid impact scientists". Ignore the 400 asteroid impact scientists who think it's not a big deal. Of the 100 left, claim 97% consensus on the severity of the threat.
10. Plaster the results of your "survey" everywhere in the media, knowing that the media won't bother to investigate.

Me, I applaud the God-Emperor's choice. The sooner the EPA can get back to dealing with real environmental problems, like clean air or polluted waterways, instead of trying to cut down the amount of plant food in the air.

[cubby]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Totally false, trying to smear

Is your basis of argument the information and petition from the above link? Is there where the 31k scientists come from?

[Fadeslol]

You're still not getting even the basics, and you're ignoring every effort to improve your knowledge and analytical base. I'm not sure why you want to do that - several people in this thread alone are attempting to help you on your journey of knowledge - yet you just keep ignoring them and slamming your head against the same brick wall.

Why? Don't you even understand the basics of the scientific method? Or is that man-made as well?

(let's see if he catches it)

I'm not banging my head against the wall. Same thing with the 2nd Amendment, i'll have more people that disagree with me than agree with me on this forum because it leans to the Left and they don't understand why it's there.

Back to banging my head against the wall, we have Trump as President, EPA Man-Made Climate Change "Denier", GOP Congress and will have the Supreme Court. I'm not mad at all.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm not banging my head against the wall. Same thing with the 2nd Amendment, i'll have more people that disagree with me than agree with me on this forum because it leans to the Left and they don't understand why it's there.

....Climate change is on neither side of the spectrum.

[Jessicka]

The whole point was i can smear studies or even a person.

You can only do that if you have actual proof. You don't, they do.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Totally false, trying to smear

They're not climatologists, maybe a small percentage of them are but still. No way to properly verify, and it's also frankly old news; they set this up in '98 when there were still questions, those have all been answered by now so even if they thought that then, it's probable that many of them don't now.