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 “there’s 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 CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Pruitt’s 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 ...
thanks she most certainly is!
note how the fake-newsers conflate “contrary to mainstream climate science” into “a statement at odds with mainstream scientific consensus”.
Deliberately insinuating “climate science” = “scientific consensus” (an oxymoron since consensus has nothing to do with science) is like saying that proctology = all medical disciplines. Exagerated and unprovable claim is typical of the global warming scam.
[[Changes in Water Vapor concentration can change the temperature in a matter of minutes.]]
But only locally- there isn’t a constant water vapor cloud enveloping the globe- causing world wide heating- there are huge gaps that allow the heat to blow right past the cloud layers-
Climates change- what we are experiencing is nothing more than natural cyclical warming and cooling trends
There is no primary cause of something that isn’t happening.
How come when glaciers recede their are preserved trees tens of thousands of years old? Doesn’t that imply that it was warmer a long time ago?
WHen you dig into the claims about CO2, you realize the details include a lot of stipulations and qualifiers.
First of all, most every discussion of the ‘primary drivers’ are discussing only drivers where they can claim ‘man-made’. Among things that Humans have an impact on, CO2 has the most impact.
Well, that is if you accept the second premise, which is that if there is a human component to a factor, we can treat the factor as human-made, but in fact CO2 has many sources.
Cheer to our EPA chief! Thank you.
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.