EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Says Carbon Dioxide Is Not a ‘Primary Contributor’ to Global Warming

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Mar 9, 2017.

  1. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...arbon-dioxide-not-primary-contributor-n731141

    While this belief (note: science is not a belief system) is clearly the result of his years of expertise garnered as Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma (and the paychecks that he gets, or expects to get, from the fossil fuel industry), it should also be noted that this statement directly contradicts the conclusions from NASA and the NOAA who said this in January:

     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is becoming more and more clear that the primary purpose behind the head of each cabinet selection was an effort by Trump (and more specifically, Bannon) to destroy their respective agencies (Pruitt for the EPA, Carson for HUD, DeVos for Education, Sessions for DOJ, etc.)
     
    The Bear, Colonel K and Lesh like this.
  3. Blurryface

    Blurryface Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    1,170
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Are you seriously expecting people to take the word of actual scientists from NASA and NOAA over a former attorney general who has absolutely no background --- except for suing the EPA 13 times --- when it comes to the environment?

    That's crazy!
     
  4. BlackHogGranolaBrown

    BlackHogGranolaBrown Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Water vapor is our main Green House Gas by a huge margin, and Water vapor has also increased significantly.
     
    Mircea and Lil Mike like this.
  5. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On one hand the destruction of facts has begun. Special interests have won over science and reason.

    On the other hand we can't do everything we want to do if we are constantly held back by ever tightening regulations. And meanwhile other countries like China don't do anything to stop their emissions.

    In the end the best solution is to acknowledge that yes it's a manmade problem but no we're not going to do anything about it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  6. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look up the relationship between water vapor and CO2 and get back to us
     
    Bravo Duck and politicalcenter like this.
  7. BlackHogGranolaBrown

    BlackHogGranolaBrown Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    What if the water vapor increased from solar activity which peaked in the 1980's, and caused a sort of snowball effect of water vapor moving temperatures upward?
     
  8. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why doesn't the NOAA and NASA tell us exactly how much man made activities are responsible for the 2.0 degree rise in global temperature and exactly what we should be doing, that we aren't already implementing, to reverse this trend (if indeed that is possible or the trend is doing irreparable harm to earth, which has not yet been demonstrated).
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  9. BlackHogGranolaBrown

    BlackHogGranolaBrown Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Peak CO2 historically lagged behind peak temperatures.

    You can look up this all online from the research.

    The big question is how come temperatures were in decline by the time CO2 reached it's peak?
     
    expatpanama likes this.
  10. BlackHogGranolaBrown

    BlackHogGranolaBrown Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I actually do believe CO2 increases temperatures, it's just I believe it's minimal.

    I happen to believe that the main culprit of our warming is water vapor.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  11. BlackHogGranolaBrown

    BlackHogGranolaBrown Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It's funny I dealt with some who said Venus is proof of CO2 causing global warming.

    But, the atmosphere of Venus is over 96% CO2, and Earth's atmosphere is 0.04% CO2.

    How can this in any way, or form be compared?
     
  12. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Expressing any nuanced position on AGW is heresy so be thankful you cannot be burned at the stake due to the addition to man's carbon footprint that would create.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the extent that Water Vapor has increased significantly (and I would love to see your source for that claim), it is because the atmosphere can hold more moisture as it warms. So it is an example of a positive feedback loop.

    The primary driver, as NASA and the NOAA notes, is the excessive Carbon Dioxide being released by humans.
     
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will take issue with the notion that China is not doing anything to stop their emissions.

    China is now the world’s largest solar power producer

    U.S., China Agree on Implementing Paris Climate-Change Pact
     
  15. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=6583668
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pruitt
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-scott-pruitt-epa-emails-20170216-story.html

    The quote is whether CO2 is a primary driver. Which you can find here, here, and here. That last one comes from the EPA's own page.

    So asking me to find a source that CO2 is responsive ENTIRELY for the temperature rise is the very definition of forming a strawman. So you should apologize to the board for having cluttered it with your dogmatic faith based rant.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
    Elcarsh likes this.
  16. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Global Climate is, get this, complex. It is not possible to tell you EXACTLY how much humans are contributing. They can give us estimates and ranges based on the data currently available. That estimate is at least 50% of the warming.
     
    VietVet likes this.
  18. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason that Venus can act as proof of the greenhouse effect of CO2 is because of the fact that Venus is warmer than Mercury despite the fact that Venus is further away from the Sun. Laws regarding thermal radiation let us know that Venus receives about 1/100th the amount of solar radiation when compared to Mercury. The reason that Venus is warmer is specifically because of the greenhouse effect.

    We also have lab results that confirm whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is not really something that should be disputed.
     
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not on a Per Capita basis.
     
  20. Your Best Friend

    Your Best Friend Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    14,673
    Likes Received:
    6,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for picking up on that. My point was that if the Global Warming zealots that want the UN to take control of the issue had their way we would be living greatly diminished lives (in a world that is minimally warmer without any real catastrophic consequences) all based on imprecise estimations.
     
    Bravo Duck likes this.
  21. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, "per capita basis," well I'm sure that's a great relief to the people choking to death from their daily smog warnings. Meanwhile it's been decades since the same could be said of the USA.

    Could it be that "per capita" isn't showing the correct result because China is a poverty country???
     
    guavaball likes this.
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. You've provided evidence of communication. You've not shown his being on the payroll, yes? If the standard is going to be campaign contributions, then every US congressman, Senator, et al would be on the "payroll" as you've defined it.

    Second, you cannot show that CO2 is the cause of warming. So, you have no argument. You have a baseless assertion that you cannot quantify. You can speculate about it, but you cannot provide a proof of it.

    Thanks for demonstrating your inability to defend your assertions.
     
  23. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will set aside that we are trying to prevent massive warming with real catastrophic consequences.

    The reason the "UN should take control" is because of the classic problem known as collective action when it comes to the environment.

    Think of it this way: Suppose we have a bunch of farmers that all rely on one pond. Each farmer uses the pond and each farmer pollutes the pond as they go about their normal day. If the pond is not cleaned, then it will eventually become unusable by everyone. But, it is in the best interest of each farmer to keep working and to let the other farmers take care of the pond. And thus, because each farmer is focused solely on their own personal best interest, the pond will become unusable even though the amount of effort required by the farmers, if they all contributed to cleaning the pond, would be minimal.

    The same thing is happening with Global Warming. It is in the best interest of each country to allow its citizens to pollute and produce as much greenhouse gas as they can in order to drive their own economies. And it is in the best interest of each country to let the rest of the world try to stop Global Warming. And thus, we get a runaway problem of Global Warming. And the longer we wait to take action, the worse the problem becomes and the more the solution requires.
     
    VietVet likes this.
  24. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude! You should take your argument to NASA and the NOAA! You will make a killing!
     
  25. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...No, it's because they have roughly 3x times the population of the United States.
     

Share This Page