Posted on 03/15/2017 7:37:49 PM PDT by MtnClimber
DO YOU believe, CNBCs Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agencys new director, in an interview last Thursday, that its been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?
Replied Pruitt: No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and theres tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no I would not agree that its a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we dont know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a denier driven by unreason. Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitts views extreme and irresponsible proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses to all of us who call Earth home, and said she couldnt imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists in order to understand that.
Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitts answer to the question he was asked whether carbon dioxide is the climates primary control knob was entirely sound. We dont know that yet, he said. We dont. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
the UN ippc chair stated that global warming was their weapon to destroy Capitalism.
Because climate change doesnt exist?
Science uses the scientific method.
Climate “science” does not use the scientific method.
Any questions?
When the weather is _________ than average, it is proof of the climate change models.
When the _________ ice sheet is __________, it is consistent with models showing climate change.
Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda.
Typo in that title.
They wrote ‘Flawed’ when they should have written ‘Fraud’
Warm globally, cool locally! LOL!
They are so bad because the science doesn’t support their assertion that CO2 levels cause an increase in temperature, so they try to manipulate their models to support that assertion.
“climate change” is a hoax.It is an unsubstantiated mythIt is child abuse to teach these lies.SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!
We need your money up front. You can’t afford the slight chance that we may be wrong.
Mathematically, it’s an equation in too many variables, most of which - the most critical of which - are completely unknown, and can only be plugged with successively lesser degrees of accuracy.
None of the climate models include any variables for natural climate change.
None.
GIGO.
You are exactly correct.
We know why the data is so flawed .. because they have to phony it up in order to make it fit their narrative.
THEY KNOW THE DATA IS PHONY ..!!!!
Excellent article - hold that thought, and thanks for posting!
When the ice sheet advanced, retreated, advanced and finally retreated there were no cars.
Sea levels rose and fell. Humans walked to Great Britain, to Alaska and to Sweden on land bridges, due to lower sea levels.
There were no cars or factories or other man caused calamities then, either.
How do we suppose mother nature did those things, without mankind’s help?
When the ice sheet advanced, retreated, advanced and finally retreated there were no cars.
Sea levels rose and fell. Humans walked to Great Britain, to Alaska and to Sweden on land bridges, due to lower sea levels.
There were no cars or factories or other man caused calamities then, either.
How do we suppose mother nature did those things, without mankind’s help?
[Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses to all of us who call Earth home, and said she couldnt imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists in order to understand that. ]
How about being able to accurately predict ANYTHING AT ALL using the “theory” ? Past warming periods completely disprove AGW, and none of the predictions of the past 30 years have come true, so calling it “science” is nonsense.
There
Is
No
Science
of
the
Climate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.