EPA Secretary Nominee Scott Pruitt Acknowledges Global Warming

[Endus]

He didn't drink enough Koop aid from the global warming cultists

Science isn't a "cult". Sorry about that.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[alexw]

Science isn't a "cult". Sorry about that.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I thought conspiracy theories were not allowed here? Isn't that exactly what Satimy is doing? Posting one?

[stabetha]

Disputing the human contribution to climate change is climate change denial. The literal definition of the conspiracy nuttery. And if he's just admitting to outright ignorance on the matter, then maybe he should phrase it to underscore that he's outrageously ignorant and will educate himself, rather than pretending that uncertainty is somehow a position unto itself.

Though that level of ignorance should be a demonstration that he's entirely unfit for that position. Seriously, between this guy and Devos, it's like Trump is picking the worst possible] candidates for these positions. Not "someone with views I disagree with but who has a valid position", but people who are proudly and definitively ignorant about fundamental basics that their positions are rooted upon.

he is't Disputing the human contribution to climate change he is saying we don't know how much which is true. In the fucking quote YOU quoted it says “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” how the fuck is that denying it?
But anything to bash a conservative. To bad you can't infract him right.

[Endus]

he is't Disputing the human contribution to climate change he is saying we don't know how much which is true. In the fucking quote YOU quoted it says “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” how the fuck is that denying it?
But anything to bash a conservative. To bad you can't infract him right.

Because we very much know how much human activity is contributing, to a pretty high degree of accuracy and reliability. If he just didn't know, then I'd say he was unfit due to gross ignorance about basic science relevant to his position, but he's approaching it as if the evidence isn't conclusive or detailed, which is a straight-up lie.

I'm not bashing him because he's a conservative. Most conservatives don't buy into conspiracy nonsense like climate change denial. This is entirely about this one individual's personal willful ignorance.

[Jehct]

Everyone needs to be as constantly afraid as I am or you can't possibly care about what is going on.

[I Push Buttons]

"We know its getting warmer, but we can't be 100% sure it has anything to do with the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 equivalent heat capturing gases we pump into the atmosphere, no sir!"

[Glorious Leader]

Welcome to the next 4 years.

"Well, that everyone in the highest office of the land is incompetent was funny for the first week or so, but then shit went south for everyone and it really wasn't funny anymore..."

To be fair i dont think steve mnuchin is incompotent. As treasury secretary he will do an excellent job at being wallstreets best friend.

[alexw]

"We know its getting warmer, but we can't be 100% sure it has anything to do with the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 equivalent heat capturing gases we pump into the atmosphere, no sir!"

99.9999999999999999999% surety isn't enough! We need that final 0.0000000000000000001%!

[Garnier Fructis]

he is't Disputing the human contribution to climate change he is saying we don't know how much which is true. In the fucking quote YOU quoted it says “The climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in some manner,” how the fuck is that denying it?
But anything to bash a conservative. To bad you can't infract him right.

It's not true. We do know what our effect is. Analyzing the extent of our impact was one of the primary goals of the last half century of research.

It's a weasel position. He wants to dispute what scientists are saying without looking like he is, and people are falling for it.

[Cyberowl]

99.9999999999999999999% surety isn't enough! We need that final 0.0000000000000000001%!

Such a classic.

[Edge-]

I enjoy that the new denial is, "Well, we acknowledge that it's probably happening, but we shouldn't really do anything about it yet. We need to spend more time studying it to determine how much humans are responsible for and we have to think of the economy!"

So they can shield themselves from criticisms of being anti-science and climate change deniers, but still do absolutely nothing to address the issue.

Such a classic.

Especially relevant given Trump's views on vaccines...in that he's repeatedly written/said anti-vaxxer bullshit.

[Mafic]

The insurance lobby in the US is huge and will push back on the denial of human induced acceleration of global warming.

You think the major players in the insurance industry are going to let Pruitt off the hook? The insurance industry is already planning to strike back against the frackers and the micro earthquakes resulting from post operations of fracking activities.

[Garnier Fructis]

The insurance lobby in the US is huge and will push back

*snippy snip*

infracted - minor spam

[Healing Rain]

The climate changes naturally over time. Everyone knows this.

[Independent voter]

One thing you got to say about this to deniers is: if f'cking Scott Pruitt Acknowledges Global Warming, you have to too. He's about as conservative as they come having filed a dozen lawsuits aimed at the EPA. If he believes it's real. Manmade global warming is a reality.

[Edge-]

One thing you got to say about this to deniers is: if f'cking Scott Pruitt Acknowledges Global Warming, you have to too. He's about as conservative as they come having filed a dozen lawsuits aimed at the EPA. If he believes, you should too.

He's not really acknowledging it though. This is a pivot that some climate deniers have been making lately. They "acknowledge" that it's real, but don't want to do anything about it. Instead we get calls for "more data!", which would normally be great but not only do we have tons of data but these are folks that have often have a history of refusing to believe data when its shown to them, and "Oh, but what about the economy!" handwringing, which is also a legitimate concern if it wasn't coming from folks who again, have a history of denying climate change exists in order to promote business interests.

TLDR: It's a load of disingenuous horse shit.

[Thepersona]

He's not really acknowledging it though. This is a pivot that some climate deniers have been making lately. They "acknowledge" that it's real, but don't want to do anything about it. Instead we get calls for "more data!", which would normally be great but not only do we have tons of data but these are folks that have often have a history of refusing to believe data when its shown to them, and "Oh, but what about the economy!" handwringing, which is also a legitimate concern if it wasn't coming from folks who again, have a history of denying climate change exists in order to promote business interests.

TLDR: It's a load of disingenuous horse shit.

edge, can i autoquote my old thread about the reasons of why climate change is real?

[Belize]

The climate changes naturally over time. Everyone knows this.

It's also known the human activity has increased the rate of that change substantially.

[Thepersona]

this is an old post made by me:

Hello. I'm posting this because i'm sick of all the lies that some people try to put out in order to generate doubt that AGW exist. Because of that i'll put some reasons on why human-caused climate change exists and discredit some of the conspiracy theories behind the deniers (and i personally think that putting denial links should be treated as conspiracy theory on these forums).
Bear in mind that some of the evidence complements eachother. so its desirable to read all of them.

Before this starts, you should read these links on what does greenhouse gas means, and how does the sun... well heats things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/main-ghgs
https://www.reference.com/science/su...014b7e2f6f84e7
http://science.howstuffworks.com/star.htm


First evidence: Carbon (and Methane) has been proven to be a greenhouse gas, or to be more exact, a heat trapping gas. There's even a video on mythbusters that prove it, on a controlled condition. Most of the solar radiation that reaches our planet is on the infrared to visible spectrum.

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxid...ared-radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY
http://naturalfrequency.com/wiki/solar-radiation

Second Evidence: Carbon has been trapped since ancient times in different sources, mainly in coal, oil and natural gas deposits. This acts as a big (very big) carbon sink. its also trapped in the bottom of the oceans and in the permafrost (alongside methane, but this will be discussed on a point later). When any hydrocarbon compound is subjected to a combustion reaction, it releases H2O and CO2 as waste product + heat and light (if the reaction is strong enough). This even happens on most of the chemical reactions that are necessary to life. This carbon (the one that was trapped on the fossi fuels) has been used extensively since the industrial revolution.

http://www.windows2universe.org/eart...co2_cycle.html
http://www.sartep.com/chem/tutorials...ete+Combustion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
https://www.mhi-global.com/discover/.../history.html4

Third evidence: since the industrial revolution the carbon present on the atmosphere has seen increasing numbers, even more in the recent years.for thousand of years, CO2 has been part of our air in a stable proportion. this hasn't been the case since the 1950s, when widespread use of internal combustion engines and plastic usage went global (plastic manufacture also releases CO2). Methane atmospheric levels are higher too, and methane is a waste product of cattle (it's litterally part of cowsh*t). It's needed to be said that we can accurately predict past levels of different gasses present in an ancient atmosphere, mainly because it gets trapped in bubbles on the antarctic ice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/0...-year-old-air/

Fourth evidence: Natural causes cannot be accounted for this increase in CO2 and CH4 levels (such as a natural decrease in carbon sinks, or volcanism).
volcanic activity has remained mostly stable in the past 100s of years, so that emissions are also stable. And interestingly, most of the volcanic eruptions produce localized (and global when its a megavolcano) cooling, because of the sulfur compounds that are released that block sunlight (and heat, and add to that the acid rain). Even in a weird way, climate change affects the rate of volcanic eruptions. Solar activity cannot be accounted for the increase of temperature, for it has been stable/lower than before.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...noes-affect-w/
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_carbon_cycle/
http://www.livescience.com/25936-cli...volcanism.html
https://www.skepticalscience.com/sol...g-advanced.htm

Fifth evidence: The global temperature has been higher in the recent years, increasing in a rate never seen before (some scientist say that its even on a rate comparable to a great dying extinction event). It's very important to note not only the absolute temperature, but the speed of said warming

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/201...climate-change
http://www.astrobio.net/climate/glob...e-great-dying/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temper...ast_1000_years
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

Sixth evidence: Ocean acidification. This is part of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide is dilluted on seawater, it undergoes a chemical reaction that forms carbonic acid. This does, in fact decrease the Ph of the oceanic water (as Ph goes down, it gets more acidic). This makes shell formation (for molluscs) much more difficult, and can prove fatal for many species.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...acidification/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/oce...al-warming.htm

Seventh evidence: Floods/Hurricanes/Droughts much more prevalent on the recent years. The extreme temperatures makes this events much more typical than before, and in the case of hurricanes (typhoons) it's because of the higher energy that can be used (higher than before). Have to add that Hurricanes and theses type of storms works like an engine, using heat as energy

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-...s/drought.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l#.WGxG-VXhDIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-w81QtY0ek

Eighth evidence: Species are moving north (or south) because of the change in temperature/rain, moving higher in latitude to a climate that suits them better, if they cant do that, they die
http://ihrrblog.org/2011/08/24/clima...er-elevations/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6234/571.full

Ninth Evidence: Some groups (Exxon mobil) reportedly knew about AGW since the 70s. But they tried to use money to get scientists for hire (i dunno what's the exact word) to muddy the waters and produce denialism. this happened because a policy that tackled climate change went against their business interests (like the ban on leaded gasoline and the controversy that happened before that... there's a chapter on cosmos that is dedicated to it).

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...denier-funding
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...science-denial

TLDR: there're insane amounts of evidence that proves that AGW exists. it's condensed on the IPCC report, here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/

and for policy makers (a real tldr) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

PS: if someone comes with another one, feel free to PM me

[satimy]

Because we very much know how much human activity is contributing, to a pretty high degree of accuracy and reliability. If he just didn't know, then I'd say he was unfit due to gross ignorance about basic science relevant to his position, but he's approaching it as if the evidence isn't conclusive or detailed, which is a straight-up lie.

I'm not bashing him because he's a conservative. Most conservatives don't buy into conspiracy nonsense like climate change denial. This is entirely about this one individual's personal willful ignorance.

That's bullshit and you know it