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

[cubby]

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.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Is your argument coming from the information and petition from the above link? Is that where the 31k scientists come from?

[Fadeslol]

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.

Yes you can call me Fades, i don't mind. I been listening to you since we started talking, i don't ignore you because you have a different opinion, this is how we get to common ground which we lost in this country.


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

"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." Agreed but i'm focused on greenhouse gases part.

"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."

They should say Man-Made Climate Change instead of Climate Change. That is misleading people. Natural kind is Climate Change, we don't control that. Man-Made is us, there is a difference. No it is not helpful because you're misleading people. You're saying Man-Made Climate Change is the reason everything that's happening in the world. It's not a straw man, we need to stop global warming because we are going to harm the planet and destroy the world.

"There are climate changes happening now that can be directly linked to man-made causes. There is plentiful evidence that this is the case." That is not true.
btw what evidence are you showing

"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."

Oh i'm sorry if i ignored your question, again i'm trying to type to 7 different people. It's not enough from green house gases to cause all the problems. Does it play a factor, yes but heat up the earth and xyz no. Do i agree with moving to clean energy yes but we need plans for that, good plans and we also need to ban GMOs

Also sorry for taking too long, it logged me out and i didn't copy it so i had to write it again.

[Bodakane]

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)!"

Jesus.

I hate to break it to you, but you misunderstood that post entirely. I was pointing out to a devout conservative that what he said directly countered a typical plank of conservatives....state's rights. I was pointing out his hypocrisy not professing my thoughts.

I couldn't be more liberal unless I was a Mac using vegan who lived on a farm animal sanctuary....oh wait, I am all of those things.

[Fadeslol]

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?!

They are verified thru a process and i said one million scientist would to be for the 97% number.

[Chickensoup23]

I had no idea this many people actually denied climate change until I read this thread. This is scary.

[cubby]

They are verified thru a process and i said one million scientist would to be for the 97% number.

They in fact are NOT verified through a process. You just sign it, send it in, and poof - you're a scientist.

The petition is about the same as false news and has zero scientific value. ZERO.

[satimy]

That 97% is outdated anyway, it was a conclusion reached in 2011. 5 years later it's more like 99%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

[Fadeslol]

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



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.

Agreed not all are climatologists which i said that before. 2nd and they haven't been answered right. There are scientist who disagree but problem is everyone tells them to shut up or they should be jailed. It needs a bigger discussion. Everything in the 98' was proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

They in fact are NOT verified through a process. You just sign it, send it in, and poof - you're a scientist.

The petition is about the same as false news and has zero scientific value. ZERO.

Wrong. "Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." They go thru a process

- - - Updated - - -

I had no idea this many people actually denied climate change until I read this thread. This is scary.

Man-Made Climate Change use the right term please

- - - Updated - - -

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

Of course Climate Change..... Man-Made Climate Change, left believe more than right.

[cubby]

Wrong. "Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." They go thru a process.

No, they do not. The statement you quoted mentions nothing about vetting the signatories. And I've combed through the entire site - there are no other indications of this not being something anyone could have created.

It's complete bullshit. It would take anyone knowledgeable of web design 20 minutes to set up something similar, and it would have the same value. No vetting. No peer review. The "process" is filling out a postcard. Jesus.

Man-Made Climate Change use the right term please

You're not qualified to make that call.

[drakensoul]

No, there is no process. "Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." says absolutely ZERO about a process. The process is you fill out the post-card and send it in.

Anything else is something you're making up because it suits your argument.

Also, no one is being mislead by the term climate change. Unless English isn't your first language or you're living under a rock absolutely everyone knows that we're talking about climate change as it relates to humankind impact on global climate. There's no need to say "man-made climate change," and in fact I have never heard that used in any ongoing way.

You're again trying to make something up for some reason.

Like saying that we have to say "human vehicles" because there are some vehicles which are autonomous and not for humans, thus we need to make sure we say "human vehicles" when talking about human cars and trucks otherwise we are misleading people.

Ludicrous.

Hey bob, I'm gonna go buy a new human car. You know, a car that humans drive.

[Barnabas]

There two real camps of thought. They are you want earth to be colder or you want earth to be warmer. The people in the US overwhelmingly prefer a warmer climate. This is climate change.

[Fadeslol]

No, there is no process. "Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." says absolutely ZERO about a process. The process is you fill out the post-card and send it in.

Anything else is something you're making up because it suits your argument.

Also, no one is being mislead by the term climate change. Unless English isn't your first language or you're living under a rock absolutely everyone knows that we're talking about climate change as it relates to humankind impact on global climate. There's no need to say "man-made climate change," and in fact I have never heard that used in any ongoing way.

You're again trying to make something up for some reason.

So there is a process to get on.

You guys like to mislead people into saying Climate Change. Climate Change always happens. Man-Made Climate Change isn't going to lead us to death.

"you're living under a rock absolutely everyone knows that we're talking about climate change as it relates to humankind impact on global climate. There's no need to say "man-made climate change," and in fact I have never heard that used in any ongoing way."

It was global warming but it got debunked so they had to change it to Climate Change when it fact it should be Man-Made Climate Change

[drakensoul]

So there is a process to get on.

You guys like to mislead people into saying Climate Change. Climate Change always happens. Man-Made Climate Change isn't going to lead us to death.

"you're living under a rock absolutely everyone knows that we're talking about climate change as it relates to humankind impact on global climate. There's no need to say "man-made climate change," and in fact I have never heard that used in any ongoing way."

It was global warming but it got debunked so they had to change it to Climate Change when it fact it should be Man-Made Climate Change

You can call it Cleopatra's panties for all I care; everyone else knows what we're talking about. So if you need to call it man-made climate change so that you can keep track of it, go ahead. The rest of us don't seem to have an issue keeping straight what we're referring to.

And no, for the third time, there is no vetting process. Sorry, there just isn't. There's no implied verification whatsoever.

And even if there were, it would still be complete garbage.

And whether or not you believe climate change will "lead us to death" doesn't really matter. Much like the rest of reality, it doesn't hinge on whether or not you agree with it. So either it will or it won't, and in neither case will it care what your opinion of it is.

[cubby]

So there is a process to get on.

No, there isn't. That's what we're trying to tell you. My 10 year old son could sign it just by saying he has a Bachelor's Degree in Geology.

[Annoying]

Again, no. Ok so you linked 1400 scientist?

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

31k scientist

1400 climate scientists.

[Surfd]

The left needs to understand that many of the draconian changes they have proposed, would literally bankrupt citizens who rely on heating oil, and coal based electricity. The push back is more about those impacts, than acknowledging the problem. If Big Science wants to be treated as a-political, it's probably time to offer up your own solutions, and get someone other than a shady politician to be your messenger. I personally find it bizarre that so many in the science world refuse to accept that there are active solutions we can take. Conservation is not the only tool we have.

Those people are part of the problem though, much like the rust belters stuck in the 50's who voted Trump in because they actually think he will be able to keep their factory jobs around so they can keep on living in a magical bubble the rest of the world is rapidly leaving behind.

Coal is dead. The corporate bigshots who use it to line their pockets simply refuse to admit it, because that would mean giving up their fat paychecks, and would rather just flail it's corpse around like some kind of Frankenstinian monster then accept the fact that they are living on very heavily borrowed time.

Oil is dying. Do you know why Oil prices keep dropping, and dropping, and dropping? Because every goddamned country on the planet with the ability to pump it is pumping it non stop in the hopes that they will be able to sell as much of it as they can before the demand for it just totally bottoms out. They have seen the writing on the wall. They know that 40 years from now, the global market for oil will be a minuscule fraction of what it is today as more and more countries transition to renewable energy sources. And since selling oil for 30 bucks a barrel now for as long as you can is better then selling it for 5 bucks a barrel in 10 years, They are just pumping the shit out of it and trying to sell it to whoever they can. We are globally producing MILLIONS of barrels of oil PER DAY more than we are consuming. And barring either a MAJOR global war event or a HUGE boom in world wide economic growth to spur massive oil consumption, there is almost nothing that is going to cause us to start using more oil then we are producing. Simple supply vs demand mathematics will tell you how the oil market is going to fare in this situation.

The simple fact of the matter though, is that all the people with vested interests in keeping coal and oil alive utterly refuse any option that is not keep coal and oil alive, much like the rust belters who refuse any option that is not save our factory jobs.

You can't reason with people like that. You can't transition them to other things. In the case of big oil and coal, those "active alternative solutions" you mentioned are actively fought against. We are several decades behind the possible curve on what electric vehicles could be, almost 100% directly attributable to big oil and their lobbyists cock blocking development into that technology. The same could probably be said for dozens of other things, all because they would have posed a potential threat, no matter how minor, to the profitability of the oil industry.

The best you can do, is hope that they eventually die off without first wreaking irreversible damage on their way out as they claw and grasp at everything they can to prolong their inevitable death.

[drakensoul]

No, there isn't. That's what we're trying to tell you. My 10 year old son could sign it just by saying he has a Bachelor's Degree in Geology.

But why are we even arguing the validity of some quack website like that's the make-or-break point for climate change?

CO2 and CH3 are greenhouse gasses. They reflect infrared light and prevent it from escaping into space. It causes surfaces that it touches to heat up. We pump billions of tonnes into the atmosphere every day. I may not be a Science expert but I'm pragmatic enough to see that it's intuitively possible that we contribute to global warming.

Thankfully, the majority of the country agrees with me.

[Fadeslol]

No, there isn't. That's what we're trying to tell you. My 10 year old son could sign it just by saying he has a Bachelor's Degree in Geology.

Yes there is a process

[drakensoul]

Yes there is a process

Like a child arguing that the sky is green.

[Fadeslol]

You can call it Cleopatra's panties for all I care; everyone else knows what we're talking about. So if you need to call it man-made climate change so that you can keep track of it, go ahead. The rest of us don't seem to have an issue keeping straight what we're referring to.

And no, for the third time, there is no vetting process. Sorry, there just isn't. There's no implied verification whatsoever.

And even if there were, it would still be complete garbage.

And whether or not you believe climate change will "lead us to death" doesn't really matter. Much like the rest of reality, it doesn't hinge on whether or not you agree with it. So either it will or it won't, and in neither case will it care what your opinion of it is.

You can sit there and mislead people all you want. This is why we have a problem. First it was called Global Warming, it got debunked so you changed the name to Climate Change to confuse everyone. It should be Man-Made Global Warming. Yes there is a vetting process.

"And even if there were, it would still be complete garbage." Because you don't believe in Science

"And whether or not you believe climate change will "lead us to death" doesn't really matter. Much like the rest of reality, it doesn't hinge on whether or not you agree with it. So either it will or it won't, and in neither case will it care what your opinion of it is. " Agreed but don't sit there and put a Carbon tax on our companies

- - - Updated - - -

Like a child arguing that the sky is green.

Like not understanding Man-Made Climate Change killing all of us is only a Scientific Hypothesis