Trump EPA Pick Pruitt: Human role in climate change ‘subject to continuing debate’ - Polidicks

[IMG]http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/pruittscott_011817gn1.jpg?itok=tLXZt_eH[/IMG] [Quote]President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Wednesday that climate change is real, but he is skeptical of the degree to which humans contribute. The position outlined by Scott Pruitt, the current Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, goes farther than Trump’s previously stated position that climate change is a “hoax.” But it also falls short of the scientific consensus that human activity, through greenhouse gases mainly produced by burning fossil fuels, is the main driver of recent global warming. “Science tells us that the climate is changing, and that human activity, in some manner, impacts that change,” Pruitt told the Environment and Public Works Committee in the opening statement of his confirmation hearing Wednesday. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be,” Pruitt said.[/quote] [URL="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/314793-pruitt-human-role-in-climate-change-subject-to-continuing-debate"]The Hill[/URL]

[quote]"skeptical of the degree to which humans contribute"[/quote] What else could it be? Methane from cows? Which we're responsible for??

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;51689464]"skeptical of the degree to which humans contribute" What else could it be? Methane from cows?[/QUOTE] but that would still be human caused since we are responsible for the hundreds of millions of cows its fucking 60 here in january, the debate is over, we need to take action

No it isn't

I think it should be telling that if you actually go looking for papers and sources on climate change it's often treated as a foregone conclusion that the majority is human influenced and the focus is instead on observing the effects of the changes [editline]18th January 2017[/editline] This guy's a fucking prat, basically

Well, the current research is most definitely examining the human impact, and to what degree it has to do with climate change. The problem is with phrasing it the way he did, is that it leaves room for doubt and possible belief that humans are not the primary cause of increasing temperatures (CO2 emissions from human activity correlates well with increases observed in atmosphere). It also doesn't inspire belief that he has been up to date on anything that environmental scientists or climatologists have put out in the past few decades. I'm not an earth scientist or environmental scientist, so I am not up to speed with all of the current research, but from recent news that I've read, I do know that there is a lot of debate among climatologists about their research and how to interpret data. Just that there is no debate about increasing climate among those groups, instruments to use (boat borne sensors vs newer long duration buoys etc), how climate is changing in specific regions around the world, and models for global climate are all major topics subject to change. It's telling though when all of the updated models just keep getting more dire in their predictions than the last.

It's only "subject to continuing debate" because those in power can't get the oil industry's cock out of their mouths.

[QUOTE=Reviized;51689525]Well, the current research is most definitely examining the human impact, and to what degree it has to do with climate change. The problem is with phrasing it the way he did, is that it leaves room for doubt and possible belief that humans are not the primary cause of increasing temperatures (CO2 emissions from human activity correlates well with increases observed in atmosphere). It also doesn't inspire belief that he has been up to date on anything that environmental scientists or climatologists have put out in the past few decades. I'm not an earth scientist or environmental scientist, so I am not up to speed with all of the current research, but from recent news that I've read, I do know that there is a lot of debate among climatologists about their research and how to interpret data. Just that there is no debate about increasing climate among those groups, instruments to use (boat borne sensors vs newer long duration buoys etc), how climate is changing in specific regions around the world, and models for global climate are all major topics subject to change. It's telling though when all of the updated models just keep getting more dire in their predictions than the last.[/QUOTE] It's the now-standard GOP moving of the goal posts. Originally it was "global warming isn't happening". Then it was "humans have no impact on global warming". Now it's "well we don't know how big the impact is" with the tacit implication being that it hasn't been proven to be such a big influence as to strengthen environmental regulations. He is technically right when he says the degree and extent are a matter of debate but his objective (presumably) is to minimize it.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51689545]It's the now-standard GOP moving of the goal posts. Originally it was "global warming isn't happening". Then it was "humans have no impact on global warming". Now it's "well we don't know how big the impact is" with the tacit implication being that it hasn't been proven to be such a big influence as to strengthen environmental regulations. He is technically right when he says the degree and extent are a matter of debate but his objective (presumably) is to minimize it.[/QUOTE] That's one of the biggest problems I can see developing in science from here on out. It's no longer enough to share results and the general consensus of what is true, and then let the public make sense of it. It's saddening because the truth can be twisted, and used for individual agendas (Pruitt's statement is a good example) rather than for the good will of all people. Especially for the fields that for some reason have become targeted by politicians (climate, evolutionary biology, physics in some cases) I can see activism and spirited defense of results becoming a more necessary part of these fields, something that usually isn't required, which is saddening.

Pruitt is a child molester in charge of a daycare. This is only going to the beginning of what's to come. I'm honestly worried if there will even be an EPA after Trump's administration.

i don't claim to be a psychologist or anything, but i suspect the reason why climate change deniers think the way they do is because they're utterly terrified of the idea that humanity could ever fail, and rather than try to prevent it, they plug their ears and try not to think about it

Here's a live stream of the hearing. [video=youtube;X4qiZLbnFg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4qiZLbnFg4[/video]

Why is it a thumbnail of Battlefield 4 concept art. [QUOTE=Nautsabes;51689817]idk[/QUOTE] v:v:v

idk

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51689788]i don't claim to be a psychologist or anything, but i suspect the reason why climate change deniers think the way they do is because they're utterly terrified of the idea that humanity could ever fail, and rather than try to prevent it, they plug their ears and try not to think about it[/QUOTE] there's a surprising crossover between people who believe that religious apocalypses (i.e. Judgement Day) are a foregone conclusion, and climate change deniers.

On one side of the debate, businessmen and lawyers bursting with cash. On the other, increasingly frustrated scientists on various stages of the Kübler-Ross model.

No it isn't, and anybody who isn't a complete dumbass could figure this out using simple logic. It's impossible to have almost 7.5 billion human beings running around the planet eating and drinking, driving, using electricity, building, mining, hacking down forests, fishing, manufacturing all kinds of products (most of which they don't even really need)... without any environmental impacts occurring at all. You don't have to be a climatologist to understand this, you don't have to know a fucking thing about environmentalism to understand this. Again, it doesn't take anything but simple logic to understand this. But I digress. I don't think most of these people are genuinely stupid to believe there's not any impacts from human activity at all. I think it just comes down to, as others have pointed out, them lying through their teeth about it for money. However, there's still a startling number of people (mostly in the general public) who do honestly seem to believe it doesn't exist or that humans aren't to blame for it. Being forced to live out a solution to the Fermi Paradox sucks.

[QUOTE=Govna;51690408]No it isn't, and anybody who isn't a complete dumbass could figure this out using simple logic. It's impossible to have almost 7.5 billion human beings running around the planet eating and drinking, driving, using electricity, building, mining, hacking down forests, fishing, manufacturing all kinds of products (most of which they don't even really need)... without any environmental impacts occurring at all. You don't have to be a climatologist to understand this, you don't have to know a fucking thing about environmentalism to understand this. Again, it doesn't take anything but simple logic to understand this. But I digress. I don't think most of these people are genuinely stupid to believe there's not any impacts from human activity at all. I think it just comes down to, as others have pointed out, them lying through their teeth about it for money. However, there's still a startling number of people (mostly in the general public) who do honestly seem to believe it doesn't exist or that humans aren't to blame for it. Being forced to live out a solution to the Fermi Paradox sucks.[/QUOTE] They don't believe it because the "experts" running the government are corporate mouthpieces, and that's all they hear.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51690416]They don't believe it because the "experts" running the government are corporate mouthpieces, and that's all they hear.[/QUOTE] The ordinary people you mean?

[QUOTE=Govna;51690448]The ordinary people you mean?[/QUOTE] Right, sorry if that was unclear.

Ok yeah even if it's the fuckin aliens shooting us with microwaves let's not be nihilistic and work on carbon sequestration and greener energy so as to not look at a house fire, go "meh, nothin i can do" and pour gas into it

[url]https://xkcd.com/1732/[/url] Yeah humans definitely didn't cause it at all!

Almost every time I see/hear these cabinet picks speaking, I just want to reach out and wring their fucking necks for being so objectively wrong. Words can't describe the frustration and feeling of helplessness as you watch people get away with simply being WRONG and yet proceeding as though there is no problem. I had to explain net neutrality to my mother recently in the context of Trump's new FCC pick to-be. She had no idea what net neutrality was, so she read me the guy's statement and said "that doesn't seem unreasonable!", to which I had to explain "it doesn't, but that's not at all what net neutrality is either". These people go up and tell flat out lies, or just deflect, and nobody holds them to it. Even watching Warren grill the new DoE pick wasn't satisfying: Sure, she looked stupid under that line of questioning, but she just smiled for 3 hours and got it over with. Zero consequences.