Scott Pruitt

Scott Pruitt Climate Change Freakout: Stay Calm and Carry On

At Senate: "I do not believe that climate change is a hoax."

|

PruittCSPAN
C-SPAN

The media and the internet are freaking out about new EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's remarks about climate change during a CNBC interview earlier today. As they used to say, let's go to the tape (or at least The Washington Post's report of the incident):

"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," Pruitt, the newly installed EPA administrator, said on the CNBC program "Squawk Box."

"But we don't know that yet," he continued. "We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."

I just want to remind folks that this basically is what Pruitt said during his Senate confirmation hearing:

For the most part, Pruitt reiterated each time he was questioned that "science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change." He added, "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." Asked if he agreed President-elect Donald Trump's 2014 tweet that climate change is "a hoax," Pruitt replied, "I do not believe that climate change is a hoax."

Now that he's in office, Pruitt is evidently letting his climate change skepticism freak flag flap a bit more in the breeze. Pruitt is overplaying his hand, but as I reported during the confirmation hearings:

Pruitt is right that there is some debate among researchers with regard to the degree and impact that man-made climate change is having now and in the future. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn't it?

Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.

NEXT: Two Women Challenge Tennessee's Horse Massage Licensing Law in Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who is freaking out?

    1. I don’t know but Ron Bailey calmly calls Pruitt a science-denier.

      1. Ron Bailey has been a disappointment from an empirical standpoint.

        He wrote:

        “Pruitt is right that there is some debate among researchers with regard to the degree and impact that man-made climate change is having now and in the future.

        and also

        one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn’t it?

        If he seriously believes what he has written and is willing to back up the science behind those statements, THERE IS NO REASONABLE ARGUMENT FOR TAXING CARBON DIOXIDE.

        Ron has argued that a CO2 trading mechanism could be the answer to a problem he doesn’t even think exists.

        Who is the science denier now?

        1. Sloopy’s mom?

    2. The freak is the first one who brings up their flag.

    3. “You are freaking out…man.”

      1. He is littering the comments section, and…..

    4. I’m perfectly calm, dude.

    5. Woke mid-school girls and Leonardo Dicaprio

  2. “We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

    Fine. As long as not one goddamned red cent of tax money is spent on the debate and the review and the analysis.

    1. But of course the entire point of Pruitt’s is that CONTINUING means everybody continues to suck the government tit until they die.

    2. Stop using the internet if you don’t like using tax money to do research on things.

      1. Why’s that, Tony? Because ARPA? They made a network that did nothing of interest before the WWW standard and massive investment from a slew of private entities. The Internet, the most decentralized system in human history, is probably not a great hill for you to die on.

        1. BUT VELCRO AND TANG!!111!!!!111!

          1. Not Velcro:
            “Swiss electrical engineer George de Mestral invented his first touch fastener when, in 1941, he went for a walk in the woods and wondered if the burrs that clung to his trousers ? and dog ? could be turned into something useful”
            Wiki.
            Maybe duct tape, that other wonder fastener?

            1. No goddamn it – he invented a ‘hook and loop’ fastener but nothing, NOTHING! would have come of it if it weren’t for the US government spending money to . . . something, something, Mariana Mazzucato.

              . . . and the fabric got its first break when it was used in the aerospace industry to help astronauts maneuver in and out of bulky space suits.

            1. Those were incredibly foul. As I recall nearly every kid begged and nagged their folks into buying a box…once. I believe the first one I tasted was a premium inside a box of cereal.

              1. I was raised on Tang and food sticks. And when I’m dying of cancer, I will curse NASA to my grave.

        2. Oh, I dunno. I’d accept pretty much any hill if he’d just die on it already.

      2. What? How much tax do you contribute?

      3. The internet is financed by porn.

      4. I’ll allow for one red cent. Hell, two cents. Are we happy now?

  3. He has more flexibility after the confirmation.

  4. The most evil thing about this is that rightwinger oil puppets made this into a political issue, and so normal people and politicians can’t just talk about solving the biggest problem facing humanity, they have to spend all their time talking about whether it even exists. This is a bigger assault on free speech than anything proggie college kids do.

    1. I think the biggest problems facing humanity are access to clean water, growing food, and disease/illnesses from insects.

      Thanks to the left, lots of people are starving or going blind.

      Meanwhile, has a single person anywhere actually been harmed by global warming? No, because even at its worst, it’s a slight rise in temperature.

      1. Knowing what the fuck you’re talking about before you speak is always a good idea.

        1. Tony|3.9.17 @ 8:48PM|#
          “Knowing what the fuck you’re talking about before you speak is always a good idea.”

          Good advice. Shame you don’t take it, dimwit.

        2. Socialism is for fags tony and man made global warming is a hoax

    2. Tony|3.9.17 @ 6:53PM|#
      “This is a bigger assault on free speech than anything proggie college kids do.”

      Yep, debating something is limiting free speech.
      What a fucking ignoramus.

      1. If you disagree with us you’re assaulting free speech.

        Holy shit, I’m used to the Tony logic twisting but that one made me cringe.

    3. Nerd!

    4. …normal people and politicians can’t just talk about solving the biggest problem facing humanity…

      You mean parochial first world activists working to withhold inexpensive technologies from the developing world, thus allowing millions of truly poor to suffer injury and death from malnutrition, mosquito-borne disease, and open indoor fires for fuel? That biggest problem?

      Yeah, I don’t hear anyone talking about it either. But I wish they would.

    5. so normal people and politicians can’t just talk about solving the biggest problem facing humanity

      So, climate getting somewhat warmer as we rebound from The Little Ice Age, with some additional effects from a marginal change in a minor component of the atmosphere (CO2) from people burning fossil fuel so they can have better lives, is the biggest problem facing humanity?

      Rather than, say, increasing prosperity around the world so the billion or so dirt poor people around the world no longer will have to go hungry or homeless any more? That’s a lower priority to you? You’re more concerned that, say, an average winter low temperature where you live might, over the course of several decades, rise from maybe 25F to 26F eventually?

    6. Lol wut?

      You do realize why the oil companies exist right?

      People like to travel to places as well as have goods transported

      1. No oil. No internet.

    7. What speech is being suppressed here? You are whining about oil goons making it political when you just mentioned that politicians cant talk about what needs to be done (note if politicians are doing it then it is by definition political) and their track record for solving problems is poor. Like the affordable care act is not really affordable

    8. solving the biggest problem facing humanity

      Not it’s not.

      It’s a man-made fear-mongering event rooted in faulty premises, broken models, failed predictions, inaccurate data and massive goal-post shifting. If you think you’re gonna ‘solve’ or ‘fix’ this problem you fall right under the category I call ‘Man’s hubris’. Only man can be so arrogant to think fucken, stupid, carbon taxes and ‘reducing foot prints’ and other moronically sophomoric feel-good schemes can remotely have any impact.

      The mere fact there is NO concrete, irrefutable evidence of what causes ‘climate change’ condemns those who engage in it to failure.

      Ah, but here’s the rub. The clowns pushing this bull shit know this but have figured out a way to score a couple of bucks off dopes like you.

      Think Lyle Lanley.

    9. … they have to spend all their time talking about whether it even exists.

      Tony is admitting he doesn’t know how science works. Tony believes the “experts” even though he lacks the basic ability to discern if the “experts” are really experts. Tony would have swallowed Eugenics whole for the same reasons he accepts the catastrophic global warming nonsense. He is incapable at looking at what was predicted and noting that the predictions have failed.

      1. “He is incapable at looking at what was predicted and noting that the predictions have failed.”

        You’re referring to Tony here, but there are many (primarily proggies) who do the same.
        I’m pretty sure it has less to do with any real demonstrated danger than is does with the assumption of economic control by the government.
        Tony et al simply do not believe that their coffee shows up in the morning without gov’t regulations. Suffice to say, Tony et al are truly ignoramuses; those who have ignored reality. Those who presume reality is optional.
        They bring only harm and stupidity to the world.

    10. The most evil thing about this is that rightwinger oil puppets made this into a political issue

      The Left hyping global warming into OMG OMG We’re All Gonna DIIIIIEEE!, Greatest Disaster Ever, Got to Tax You Every Time You Exhale had nothing to do with making this a political issue.

    11. So to be clear, in order to support free speech we need to stop all this goddamn speech and just do what you want?

  5. ‘oil puppets’

    I like that, Tony. You come over to my house and fuck my sister. Go without oil for a month and get back to me.

    1. I am really confused by your comment.

  6. Strictly speaking, it’s a fraud, not a hoax.

    1. A cottage industry.

    2. Failed hypothesis, followed by fraudulent public discussion.

  7. Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.

    Those guys also still offer wiiiiiide ranges for the magnitude of those rising temperatures and what they may potentially rise to by the end of the century. Such as whether its ‘catastrophic’ or not.

    Even if there was no doubt that these rising temperatures were ‘catastrophic’ and that human activity were the main driver behind them, that still doesn’t get you to the part where the EPA is important – that’s the part where you have to decide ‘cooler but poorer, or warmer but richer’, and *then* the EPA moves into action to implement regulations to bring one or the other about.

    We seem to have been leaving it all to the EPA to decide a course of action – which is Congress’ perogative.

    Pruit’s belief or non-belief are pretty much irrelevant – there’s simply not enough good data to allow the selection of an appropriate course of action even if he accepted that temps were rising and most of that rise was human-caused.

    1. Writing like this reminds me that Bailey is not really a scientist, but a ‘journalist’ or science writer.

      1. B: Yes, I am just a journalist. OTOH, I have been reporting on climate change science and policy for about 30 years now. I am still learning about both as I continue to report. That is all.

        1. Ron,
          Why do the pundits leave out the word theory when the world is discussing something so very abstract?

          Is it not incredibly irresponsible for the entire discussion to not be referred to as theoretical at all times?

          Especially when the whole issue only gained real traction when it became politicized and exploited for monetary gain.

  8. “Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.”

    Ron, I checked that link to see the data you used and all I got was an intro to IPCC, as if that were proof of the claim. Not convincing.

    1. S: For good and ill the IPCC report is the place to start when discussing climate change. Not the end, but the beginning.

  9. Tony i am struggling to pay my medical expenses or i will die. Can you help me out oh compassionate noble sir?

    1. So all I have to do is sit around and wait then I’ll be rid of you?

      1. Tony|3.9.17 @ 8:49PM|#
        “So all I have to do is sit around and wait then I’ll be rid of you?”

        There are many here who are very sorry your mom didn’t have an abortion. The world would be measurably smarter and a better place.

      2. Tony,
        you never answered my question so you are going to need to continue to FUCK OFF!

  10. Tony i idled my car for a half hr today while
    I had the windows down rocking out to gospel music just after leaving the gun range.

    1. Change that to metal (Christian metal is fine – they’ve generally got some badass imagery) and we’re good.

  11. What I want to know is what would happen if the US stopped producing all CO2 tomorrow. Pretty sure it would prevent like .1 degrees of warning over the next century. The only thing that can “save us” is a global nuclear plant rush, but the environmentalists and climate cultists are Luddites. Also, we’ve reached like ten “points of no return”.

    1. There are simulation tools for this. It would change the predicted warming by less than a tenth of a degree by 2100. This is according to the IPCC’s models.

  12. Tony did your blood boil when washington state who went to the hag by over 10 points shot down a revenue neutral carbon tax

    And ya think it was because oil goons?

    lololololol

  13. Tony cause the wright berniebros invented the airplane doesnt mean they should be given credit for the boeing 787

    Regarding your darpa example

  14. They should adapt those ‘Great taste, less filling’ Miller beer commercials for climate change.

  15. Scott Adams has an excellent blog post on this recently. Calls out the super smart scientists for being unable to craft a convincing argument.

    Then he calls bullshit on the current climate models as being an artifact of survivor bias.

    This is consistent with my experience reviewing retrospective medical studies. They all suck.

    1. Medical research is a cesspool.

      1. Not all of it. Just the retrospective data mining.

  16. Remember when phrenology was settled science?

    1. No. That never happened.

      Also, “someone was wrong about something once, that means all the world’s scientists are wrong now” is not sound logic.

      You people are total idiots on this subject.

      1. Tony|3.9.17 @ 8:52PM|#
        “No. That never happened.”

        Fucking ignoramus. Someone above counseled having knowledge before spouting bullshit
        “Origins
        Phrenology is the science which studies the relationships between a person’s character and the morphology of the skull. It is a very ancient object of study. The first philosopher to locate mental faculties in the head was in fact Aristoteles.
        Several typologies have been defined, linking physionomy with character. The study of the face, physiognomony, has been particularly studied by the 18th century Swiss author Lavater.”
        http://www.phrenology.org/intro.html

        Read all about it, dipshit.

      2. “You people are total idiots on this subject.”

        This from a guy who thinks healthcare is a moral social right and therefore should be paid for by a line items on a federal budget.
        That is exactly what you said yesterday you colossal ignoramus.

        The depth of your intellect thinks that every single person in the medical field should basically be a government employee then because having a single payer, gov’t health system means that there would have to be a budget and controlled costs. kind of like how you can control how sick people get.

        And I’m sure that hospitals could function without the profit motive. Just like all of those nurses and janitors also would be fine with limiting their income potential so assholes with no insurance could get free care.

    2. They call it neuroscience now

  17. Tony, remember when diagnosing homosexuals as mentally ill was settled science?

  18. “Denier!” sounds a lot like “Heretic!” and is used in exactly the same manner by the AGW faithful.

    And Tony, stop being such a thin-skinned little weenie. My problem with warmingologists is that “settled science” manages to be both a piss-poor argument and an abrogation of the scientific method.

  19. “Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.”

    Sigh…

    Actual economist here.

    I mean, really. just look at the damn data for once. See that unusually cold period? (Little Ice Age) See how we are now immediately after that unusually cold period? What must happen after a local maxima? Yep, movement in the direction of the mean. People are acting like cold is normal for the climate, when we can see in the data that it flatly isn’t.

    The sky can’t fall because of warming, because we are only returning to the norm of the Holocene Maximum and/or Medieval Climate Optimum. Whatever evils people think warming will do were already done centuries ago.

    So, does the data support the hypothesis of AGW? No. It doesn’t reject it, but it gives no reason to believe it truer than other possible theories, as in simple natural variation.

    That isn’t even counting that warming is GOOD for the eco-system. And that analysis is directly in my bailiwick.

    1. The sky can’t fall because of warming, because we are only returning to the norm of the Holocene Maximum and/or Medieval Climate Optimum.

      Nothing more terrifying than returning to something called an Optimum.

  20. “EPA official resigns amid White House plans to dismantle program”
    […]
    “Mustafa Ali served more than two decades at the agency, working to ease the burden of air and water pollution in hundreds of poor, minority communities nationwide. He helped found the EPA’s environmental justice office during the early 1990s and later became a key adviser to agency administrators under Republican and Democratic presidents.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a…..990808.php

    I’ll bet you didn’t know that the EPA was an agency dedicated to SJWs and ‘wymins and minorities’.

  21. So climate change is not a hoax, but carbon dioxide is not the primary source of the warming we see, and resident “non skeptic ” insists that the two are almost consistent.

    Sean Spicer can be replaced now

    1. Damned|3.9.17 @ 9:27PM|#
      “So climate change is not a hoax, but carbon dioxide is not the primary source of the warming we see, and resident “non skeptic ” insists that the two are almost consistent.”

      Did you have a point?

  22. “Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.”

    I smell the desire to use that bogus “97% of scientists agree” slogan that many like to use as a talking point about climate science.

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”- Obama

    Let’s not forget this –

    “And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change?and it will change dramatically for the worse.” John Kerry

    Meanwhile, Robert Murphy did a great job at debunking the 97% myth.

    So should all the attempts at punishment and harassment of so called “climate change deniers” be done to climate scam supporters? Should the companies and politicians that support massive taxes, fees, and regulations against individuals and companies, be brought in for hearings to tell everyone why they skew data,

    1. lie about what the effects of a changing climate would be if we eliminated the use of fossil fuels? This while also ignoring any benefits a warmer climate could bring?

      If this administration started going after progressive outlets and “climate change believers” like they were trying to go after so called “deniers” there would be massive crying pants wetting, and maybe property destruction against folks that couldn’t defend themselves.

    2. V: Nah, the methodology of the Cook study is, well, questionable. In any case, surveys of scientists can only give you some indication of what the groupthink, ah, consensus is among researchers. FWIW, you might find this 2015 Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency climate science survey of some interest.

      1. Ron:
        “Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.”

        Ron, I checked that link to see the data you used and all I got was an intro to IPCC, as if that were proof of the claim. Not convincing.

        1. Oops.
          I see you did answer, but that’s a pretty round-about way to provide evidence for:
          “it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s”
          I’ll leave data-mining for those sorts of claims to others until the time ‘rational ignorance’ is not the proper response to climate change claims, especially such peripheral claims as to ‘consensus’. Wading through the IPCC papers to find such does not rise to that level; thank you for your efforts.
          FYI, I live in SF. Two years ago, moonbeam declared:
          “California Drought Crisis Proves Climate Change ‘Is Not A Hoax,’ Says Gov. Jerry Brown”
          http://www.ibtimes.com/califor…..wn-1870508
          As a personal opinion, I am convinced by the evidence that the climate is changing. The catastrophists assume that means X and requires gov’t action of Y and Z. So far, the arguments supporting the second sentence seem lacking,
          So far, the gap between the claims and the data compared to the actual results of human adaptation look to be doing just fine in avoiding any sort of catastrophe.

  23. Nah, the methodology of the Cook study is, well, questionable.

    Calling it “questionable” is like running to the captain of the Titanic and telling him the boat has a small leak.

  24. Eratosthenes (born 276 BC) was the first to discover the world is round. 2,293 years later we still have people that believe the Earth is flat. In the year 4,310 we will still have people like Scott Pruitt claiming humans don’t effect the climate. I think I’ll go shoot myself now.

    1. Eratosthenes (born 276 BC) was the first to discover the world is round.

      No … no he wasn’t.

      http://veritas-ucsb.org/librar…..Earth.html

      A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters–Leukippos and Demokritos for example–by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

      I suggest you go look at what Pruitt actually said because he didn’t claim that humans don’t effect the climate. He said:

      I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.

      1. Pretty sure Snort is nothing other than a lefty imbecile, here to prove to others that Snort is oh, so concerned about ‘the environment’.
        Also pretty sure Snort doesn’t have a clue as to the economic issues involved; lefty twits (Tony, above) never do.

    2. Snort|3.9.17 @ 11:39PM|#
      “I think I’ll go shoot myself now.”

      I’ll be happy to buy you the ammo and would you please shoot other ignoramuses at the same time?
      Thanks much; the world will be measurably more intelligent and a better place.

  25. There’s something about progressives that make them obsess about what people say.

    Is saying that human activity doesn’t impact climate worse than actually implementing policies that ignore climate change?

    To a lot of progressives, I think the answer is yes.

    It’s like that with a lot of things for progressives. For many of them, saying bad things about minorities is worse than just quietly discriminating against them–especially if it’s said in public.

    I still say progressivism is about using the coercive power of the state to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good, but it’s also characterized by evangelical puritanism. They’re just southern Baptists with a different agenda, really.

    Progressives are basically prudes.

    1. It’s a religion, or a cult. Climate Change is their apocalypse, public apologies are their confessionals, privilege is ‘original sin’, they are not above burning people at the stake with no scientific evidence (title IX witchhunts), their blasphemy is “hate speech”, sinning is their “problematic” behaviors. I could go on and on.

      When they try to pull the privilege card on me, I tell them to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, as I don’t believe in original sin.

    2. There is also a considerable xenophobic component. If oil and other natural resources are evil, then it’s fine to hate those who got too much of them. Selectively, of course.

  26. OT: I don’t get the SJW womens day to “shop at women or minority owned businesses” (basically don’t shop at a business owned by a white male). Do they have such little self awareness?

    So it is discrimination for a business to refuse service so someone (not wanting to bake a gay marriage cake), but it is NOT discrimination to refuse to shop at a store owned by a white or a male.

    So if you had a day where you only shopped at male stores, I’m sure the world would blow up, but they don’t bat an eye for this.

    I guess if these lunatics didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all

    1. So it is discrimination for a business to refuse service so someone (not wanting to bake a gay marriage cake), but it is NOT discrimination to refuse to shop at a store owned by a white or a male.

      Absolutely. See, you, with your paltry money, are powerless against the KKKorporations, who have all the products/services, and can, therefore, do whatever they want to you. GET WOKE, man!

      /proggie shit-head

  27. science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change

    Which is the right answer.

    1. Ha!

      Liberals hide from the fact the Clinton foundation has Russian ties.

      Partisan politics is good about sticking their head in the sand when it’s their team doing it.

  28. The words to express the gratitude to you for the successful spell casting are to great to write down. I wouldn’t even know how to express the gratitude for now having the second chance at love and life again. These are the types of things that money can’t buy and people can’t describe. Your work is amazing from the very first step to the results. Being there for me when ever I needed you and giving me advice along the way. Its just a miracle that I found manifestspellcast@gmail.com and God pointed me in your direction. More people should know of your work and how wonderful it works and has worked for me!

    Again, thank you for everything and I have referred a couple of friends to you.

    1. You’re in the wrong neighborhood. You may have a bit more luck at D.U. or Breitbart.

  29. It’s instructive if not boring to watch the two climate religions battle each other in an obscure forum for the thousandth time, resolving nothing.

    1. Not to mention that it is a theory and none of this stuff is proven or consistent.

      The only thing that is proven is that alternative forms of energy are not economically viable and they cannot even come close to competing with fossil fuels.

      That said, for the sake of humanity, can we stop all of this insanity and worry about other forms of energy when we run out of the cheap efficient stuff we have?

      otherwise, I have a sneaking suspicion then that climate changers would rather advocate for the suffering and stifling of advancing economies.
      That seems like oppression to me but I though leftists were benevolent.

  30. 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

    WHERE MUH CONSENSUS GONE?!

    Jokes aside, Pruitt is not wrong.

  31. Ronald Bailey, what is the point of this article? At least you’re not making bold counter claims that turn out to be wrong like you have in the past.

  32. If it’s settled science, show me an accurate model.

    I’m a beliver that warming is occuring. I’m a firm believer that the planet has ample ability to do very large climate change swings on it’s own. Liberals often deny that, which means they are denying reality, and denying science.

    To claim climate change is man made means you are denying the ice age, and the warming afterwards.

  33. “Still, it is the case that most climate scientists do likely think that carbon dioxide is the primary cause for rising average temperatures since the 1950s.”

    In other news, most catholic priests believe that premarital sex is immoral. Also, most cops believe that criminals who get roughed up while being arrested got what was coming to them.

    We’re talking about people that join groups/professions/organizations because they were predisposed to agree with the organization’s tenets and were then further indoctrinated into those beliefs. Forgive me if I’m unimpressed by their consensus.

  34. There is such a misunderstanding about how science works. There are debates, but not every discrepancy in findings leads to a debate. I people thought one thing last year (hiatus) and something else this year (no hiatus) it could just mean that additional evidence was acquired and people changed their view. In any case, warming continues more or less as has been predicted, based on CO2 increases, for the past 40 years. Just dumb luck? I don’t think so.

    1. In any case, warming continues more or less as has been predicted, based on CO2 increases, for the past 40 years.

      No … no it hasn’t.

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-puQ4……01+am.png

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.