Remember me
▼ Content

New EPA chief does not think carbon dioxide causes climate change


New EPA chief does not think carbon dioxide causes climate change11-03-2017 13:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124098-epa-boss-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Something that no doubt will be welcomed by the destructive maniacs that make up most of the contributors to this fourm.

Nice to see that knowledge is not needed in this brave new world.

Whats next a surgeon general that does not believe in germ theory?

Promoting a flat earther to NASA chief?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
11-03-2017 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
spot wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124098-epa-boss-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Something that no doubt will be welcomed by the destructive maniacs that make up most of the contributors to this fourm.

Nice to see that knowledge is not needed in this brave new world.

Whats next a surgeon general that does not believe in germ theory?

Promoting a flat earther to NASA chief?


The EPA says what the government tells them to say. It always has. I have already told you this.

Personally, I think he is wrong. There is no global climate change because of two reasons:

1) There is no 'global' climate. The Earth contains many climates. There is no 'global' climate just as there is no 'global' weather.
2) There is no way to measure a 'change' in climate. Climate is defined as weather 'over a long time'. That time is unspecified. That makes climate a unitless value, incapable of describing any quantity of change.

Whether the Earth is warming is another story. Since we can't measure or calculate a global temperature that's of any use, due to mathematical reasons and lack of sufficient instrumentation, global warming itself is not determinable.

Carbon dioxide is not capable of warming anything, any more than any other gas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-03-2017 22:11
11-03-2017 22:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs:...climate a unitless value....

Fortunately, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" retains its eunuch valuelessness.
Meanwhile:
///////
The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&
Edited on 11-03-2017 22:32
12-03-2017 15:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124098-epa-boss-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Something that no doubt will be welcomed by the destructive maniacs that make up most of the contributors to this fourm.

Nice to see that knowledge is not needed in this brave new world.

Whats next a surgeon general that does not believe in germ theory?

Promoting a flat earther to NASA chief?


The EPA says what the government tells them to say. It always has. I have already told you this.

Personally, I think he is wrong. There is no global climate change because of two reasons:

1) There is no 'global' climate. The Earth contains many climates. There is no 'global' climate just as there is no 'global' weather.
2) There is no way to measure a 'change' in climate. Climate is defined as weather 'over a long time'. That time is unspecified. That makes climate a unitless value, incapable of describing any quantity of change.

Whether the Earth is warming is another story. Since we can't measure or calculate a global temperature that's of any use, due to mathematical reasons and lack of sufficient instrumentation, global warming itself is not determinable.

Carbon dioxide is not capable of warming anything, any more than any other gas.



Prove it


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-03-2017 18:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12315)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124098-epa-boss-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Something that no doubt will be welcomed by the destructive maniacs that make up most of the contributors to this fourm.

Nice to see that knowledge is not needed in this brave new world.

Whats next a surgeon general that does not believe in germ theory?

Promoting a flat earther to NASA chief?


The EPA says what the government tells them to say. It always has. I have already told you this.

Personally, I think he is wrong. There is no global climate change because of two reasons:

1) There is no 'global' climate. The Earth contains many climates. There is no 'global' climate just as there is no 'global' weather.
2) There is no way to measure a 'change' in climate. Climate is defined as weather 'over a long time'. That time is unspecified. That makes climate a unitless value, incapable of describing any quantity of change.

Whether the Earth is warming is another story. Since we can't measure or calculate a global temperature that's of any use, due to mathematical reasons and lack of sufficient instrumentation, global warming itself is not determinable.

Carbon dioxide is not capable of warming anything, any more than any other gas.



Prove it


Prove what??? A void??? No, it is YOU that has the burden of proof. It is YOU that is changing existing theories of science to accommodate greenhouse effect. It is YOU that is claiming you have enough information to determine whether the globe is warming or not.

I don't have to prove a negative.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2017 18:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I don't have to prove a negative.

Your negative is to change the conclusions of proper scientists by quoting "bought & paid for" oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un PR propaganda shills, who are too money-hungry & old to remember their original dedication to truth.
Edited on 13-03-2017 18:28
13-03-2017 18:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1694)
too money-hungry & old to remember their original dedication to truth.


Sounds pretty much like most climate "scientists".


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
13-03-2017 18:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124098-epa-boss-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-climate-change/

Something that no doubt will be welcomed by the destructive maniacs that make up most of the contributors to this fourm.

Nice to see that knowledge is not needed in this brave new world.

Whats next a surgeon general that does not believe in germ theory?

Promoting a flat earther to NASA chief?


The EPA says what the government tells them to say. It always has. I have already told you this.

Personally, I think he is wrong. There is no global climate change because of two reasons:

1) There is no 'global' climate. The Earth contains many climates. There is no 'global' climate just as there is no 'global' weather.
2) There is no way to measure a 'change' in climate. Climate is defined as weather 'over a long time'. That time is unspecified. That makes climate a unitless value, incapable of describing any quantity of change.

Whether the Earth is warming is another story. Since we can't measure or calculate a global temperature that's of any use, due to mathematical reasons and lack of sufficient instrumentation, global warming itself is not determinable.

Carbon dioxide is not capable of warming anything, any more than any other gas.



Prove it


Are you a dummy or something? He made a flat statement. He was wrong that we do not have enough instrumentation but the present instrumentation we have has had such a short period that the record from that is not useable for anything other than trying to lie to others.

But unless you have ANYTHING to contradict him with you make yourself look like someone that doesn't speak English. "Prove it" indeed. What sort of idiot are you?
13-03-2017 18:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
too money-hungry & old to remember their original dedication to truth.


Sounds pretty much like most climate "scientists".


Don't tell me you're reading Chief Limpwrist again? By now you should know better than that. His mind is so far gone that he's probably in the final stages of AIDS.
13-03-2017 18:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
too money-hungry & old to remember their original dedication to truth.


Sounds pretty much like most climate "scientists".


Don't tell me you're reading Chief Limpwrist again? By now you should know better than that. His mind is so far gone that he's probably in the final stages of AIDS.
13-03-2017 20:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Don't tell me you're reading litesong...


You keep reading my posts, even tho ya don' like yer name. Ah, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is too accurate fer ya.
13-03-2017 20:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushes:
litesong wrote: too money-hungry & old to remember their original dedication to truth.

Sounds pretty much like most climate "scientists".

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" talks 'bout million dollar Willie Soon takin' oil money.
13-03-2017 23:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Actually what Scott Pruitt said was "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Where in that statement did he say that he didn't believe that CO2 caused climate change?
14-03-2017 01:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Frescomexico wrote:
Actually what Scott Pruitt said was "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Where in that statement did he say that he didn't believe that CO2 caused climate change?


It seems to me to be a bad lawyers statement, There is not "tremendous debate" in the scientific community on this issue, you wont get that from listening to talk radio or wherever you get your news from. The fact is it has warmed and will continue to warm due to our actions, we are not all "doomed" but our actions now will impact the quality of life of people in the future.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
14-03-2017 01:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Actually what Scott Pruitt said was "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Where in that statement did he say that he didn't believe that CO2 caused climate change?


In the minds of the True Believers anything that can remotely be interpreted as a statement other than undeniable support is undeniable opposition.
14-03-2017 01:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Actually what Scott Pruitt said was "I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don't know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

Where in that statement did he say that he didn't believe that CO2 caused climate change?


It seems to me to be a bad lawyers statement, There is not "tremendous debate" in the scientific community on this issue, you wont get that from listening to talk radio or wherever you get your news from. The fact is it has warmed and will continue to warm due to our actions, we are not all "doomed" but our actions now will impact the quality of life of people in the future.


37 scientists out of some 11,000 at the initial meeting of the IPCC agreed unequivocally that there was climate change but there's NO debate.

"Studies" since then have pointedly left out scientists who disagree with either the conclusions or the science but there's no debate?

These are exactly the sort of thing we've come to expect from you spot. Especially the part about your interpreting what someone meant rather than what they said.
Edited on 14-03-2017 01:51
14-03-2017 12:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
37 scientists out of some 11,000 at the initial meeting of the IPCC

They had a huge meeting in a stadium or something?

are you pulling my leg again?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
14-03-2017 19:59
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote:are you pulling my leg again?

No, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is chewin' yer legg off'n yer body.




Join the debate New EPA chief does not think carbon dioxide causes climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Carbon-tax comes to the Northeast, some states reluctant...328-01-2020 04:00
Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC314-01-2020 21:44
Challenges with making carbon emitting sustainable?927-12-2019 06:58
Let us hang the bar high: We need to achieve a carbon neutral way of life2318-12-2019 23:21
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact