EPA head Scott Pruitt denies that carbon dioxide causes global warming

Maybe where you live. Not where I live ...

 

No, what is shocking is that he's denying proven science about greenhouse gases from the 19th Century and the effects of increased (or decreased) amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

The issue of whether CO2 is a pollutant or not is quantifiable. Mankind produces CO2. Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same. If the CO2 level is increasing then the manmade CO2 is a pollutant because nature is incapable of recycling it back into a solid state. As long as nature can recycle the CO2 back into a solid state it's not a pollutant but when it can't then the CO2 becomes a pollutant.

The science is not governed by politics but as we're seeing here the politics will ignore the science completely. If we simply addressed the science we'd have a sweeping restrictions imposed upon manmade CO2 emissions as well as a significant effort to replant the rain forests that recycle the most CO2 per square foot of surface area. .

 

Problem is the so called science is politicized and no longer true science

 

What's humorous is the following from the EPA website:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases

It's actually important to copy this because the first thing we can expect is "book burning" by the anti-scientists for political reasons.

 

It's amazing that some people believe this because it's based upon an assumption of science that has no foundation. It's a conspiracy theory about science.

 

My understanding is that politicians use climate change (formerly known as global warming) as a way to control every aspect of people's lives. You can't do this, you can't do that, you must do this and you must do that. All in the name of protecting Gaia from the evil human race.

 

It's the politicians and the people that are politicized and not the scientists or the science.

The science is rather straight-forward and so people and politicians either believe the science or they nay-say the science but "nay-saying" isn't a scientific argument. In science rebuttal is based upon conflicting evidence and not simply doubting (nay-saying) the evidence that exists.

 

Scientist are people and people engage in group think with fear of being ostracized for not going along. Add the financial incentive of government grants to prove what government wants you to prove and you have politicized science

 

Indeed. The general population has been indoctrinated into a religious belief that science in incorruptible and cannot be faked. AGW clearly demonstrates total corruption and perversion of science. Science indeed worked out sure methodology, 4 rules which allowed differentiate fake from real, but this methodology has been totally suppressed and forbidden. One of the forbidden rules is in my sig

 

In what way exactly is your life being controlled? Or are YOU being a victim of fear mongering by the right?

 

Our education system has been drilling eco-centric crap into our children's minds since the days of Ted Turner's Captain Planet environmentalist cartoons. Kids are growing up with the fear that polar bears are drowning because there's no ice in the Arctic and coastal cities are going to be flooded in 20 years. Or was it 20 years ago that was supposed to happen?

 

Lol. Keep on speaking as a religious fanatic. The only ones who have been fear mongering are scientists: - global cooling, global warming, global dimming, ozone hole, black hole, you name it. It is not the matter of the left or the right, it is the matter of basic sanity which should make one just laugh at the clowns. Thought looking at the left one may conclude insanity and religious fanaticism are required as a pass to the club.

 

Sawyer writes,

"What's the "shocking" part here? Shocking that the EPA will no longer call CO2 a pollutant? Shocking that America is no longer bound by politics disguised as environmentalism? Shocking that Trump is not a member in good standing of the AGW cult?"

Shiva writes in reply,

"No, what is shocking is that he's denying proven science about greenhouse gases from the 19th Century and the effects of increased (or decreased) amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Sawyer is correct, CO2 is a not a pollutant since it doesn't meet that definition at all:

Pollution defines as: "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects." LINK

There are no demonstrated harmful effects of a greening world,as plants are having increased access to airborne CO2, are growing more efficiently,more quickly in greater size. Since CO2 has for over the past 600 Million years, been in the planets environment, at much higher levels than today,it is a naturally occurring molecule, that is in the AIR,SOILS,ROCKS,WATER and FOSSILS.

You are being irrational,Shiva.

 

It is better described as a SCAM,since the AGW conjecture was dead on arrival,but well supported by governments/environmentalists, who wanted to create a basis for increasing their control over your lives and how you live it. That is why they try so hard to squelch people who are not on their team.Why they don't want debates on the topic,as they keep saying it is "settled" and so on.

The IPCC was created in the U.N. by Governments,who said from day one that they already decided that CO2 was the culprit for the unremarkable warming since the 1800's,BEFORE they started their 5 year reports on it.

From my climate forum is this presentation about the obvious BIAS of the IPCC,from it is this quote: "Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." LINK

Then revelations that the IPCC has been very choosy on what to include in their report,shows BIAS as well since a large chunk of their 2007 report was composed of grey literature (Not peer review or published material), despite that then Chairman of the IPCC kept saying the report are composed of ONLY peer review research.

LINK to the Audited report.

A lot more problems were discovered after the report was published in 2010,attesting that the IPCC reports are badly corrupted by environmentalist groups and grey material.

It is a scam.

 

You keep using the dumb Consensus angle,which is a common tool for politics to build a voting block on something. Science runs on reproducible research,not votes.

 

Another worthless Consensus babble. Another misleading funding canard as well.

Science runs on Reproducible research.

There are many scientists who published papers that DO NOT support the alarmist view of the climate:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

LINK

There have been many more published, since the above report was posted in February,2014.

 

We have reproducible results in the lab at small scale for the temperature forcing theories. The problem is that we only have one planet with which to conduct the full-scale experiment in real time.

 

Agreed.

 

You don't. But we have reproducible results in the lab at any scale demonstrating the total illiteracy of temperature forcing theories.