Posted on 03/09/2017 9:13:21 AM PST by Olog-hai
The new chief of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus and his own agency.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said measuring the effect of human activity on the climate is very challenging and that theres tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
So, no, I would not agree that (carbon dioxide) is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see, Pruitt told CNBCs Squawk Box.
Pruitts view is contrary to mainstream climate science, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
C02 in earth is far less than 1%.
It is 0.04%.
Not 4/100.
Not 4/1,000.
4/10,000.
It is tiny. Ther is 500 times more water vapor, which makes water vapor the dominant greenhouse gas, and C02 is not even close.
The Warming Alarmists brazen lies are so obvious on the face of them on so many levels, you have to be sincerely a stupid idiot to beleive them, or something akin to a religeous zealot who screens out anything beyond the church’s official dogma — which explains 60% of all commie liberals. The other 40% really are so stupid, they cannot analyze anything for themselves.
The Sun is...
The Sun is and will be for the next 100+ years the cause of cooling. Get ready folks!
Because it is a lie that the additional 0.00136% CO2 has any appreciable affect. Math cannot support a lie. Here is to knowing thpat Pruitt’s EPA will finally ecpose this lie with accurate research by honest climatologists.
Until they admit that the Sun is the primary source of energy that the Earth receives, and that the Sun does not emit a constant quantity of energy over time, all discussions with the left are useless.
Dear Lord who is this beautiful girl?
All discussions with the left are useless no matter what. They only understand force.
“a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus”
No, a statement at odds with marxist lies and common sense.
Diana falzone
She’s babelicious
He first needs to demolish the “97% consensus” statistic. Only ~33% of scientists actually believe humans are the main cause. Most think we have “some” impact but can’t agree on how much. So he’s right but the media have repeated the lie of “97% consensus” they actually believe it.
I recently read something here on FR about it. The analogy was that abortion was supported by 98% of the population, if you consider that in pro-life circles many might allow for exceptions for rape and incest. It’s a complete miss-characterization.
Whenever I hear them say “powerful greenhouse gas” you know that ANYTHING that follows is total BS. There is only ONE greenhouse of any consequence, and it is very, very powerful. So powerful, that your weatherman uses it to PREDICT the weather. Water Vapor, is many, many times more prevalent than CO2, and it is a greenhouse gas. Changes in Water Vapor concentration can change the temperature in a matter of minutes.
Most of these “scientists” don’t even know what relative humidity is, much less that 3/4 of the Earth is covered with oceans thousands of feet deep.
When my weatherman tells me the CO2 number, to predict tomorrow’s weather, get back to me.
Global Warming = Lava
A small part of President Trump’s infrastructure repair should go to the proper positioning and repair of weather stations around the US. As has long been noted that since many were made, the area around them has changed resulting in false readings.
Putting such a station in a concrete and asphalt island will create a huge variation from reality. Plus the measuring equipment today is of much better quality.
Yep. Outgassing of CO2 from the oceans when temperatures rise.
That is one of the key reasons to aggressively go after people like Al Gore and his ilk....they KNOW this, that it is a trailing indicator.
It was no accident that in his film, he did not superimpose the graphs of CO2 levels and temperature...the slimeballs knew that even a Grade school kid might wonder why temperatures go up, followed years later by CO2 levels, so they deliberately positioned them so far apart it wouldn’t be discernible.
Scum.
I remember that the US SC ruled, in a 5-4 decision that carbon dioxide was a pollutant that could be regulated by the EPA. The case was Massachusetts vs. EPA, 2007.
Is that Huntsman’s daughter?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."--William F. Buckley, Jr.
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.