Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders EPA To Produce Science Behind Pruitt's Climate Claims (scientificamerican.com)
EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled. From a report: The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn't exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency. Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box," where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested "EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change." On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.
Fuck you, troll.
I don't respond to AC's.
This kind of comment is why I spend as much time on Slashdot as I do. Good job!
... As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed. Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore...
That would seem to me to imply that weather plays a pivotal role in ocean currents. Therefore, your claim boils down to "climate models don't include enough data about currents." That seems like a reasonable claim, so far.
Unfortunately, you completely missed another part of your early education: citations. Where are there "incomplete" models that have you so disgruntled?
Beyond that, show me a model that has currents included in it, then remove the currents. Show me how removing currents affects the results. Until you do that, you've proven nothing to me. Right now you've only stated more accurate models can be made by incorporating more information. Well, duh.
:Sigh: ... these high UID kids these days don't know how to debate science anymore...
Political hack organization trying to pin down a politician. Nothing to see here.
Proper science never has just one side. There is tons of evidence Man/Humankind/CO2 is not the primary cause of changing climate.
As I learned in grammer school, Ocean currents play a pivotal role is weather. Ocean currents have changed. Ocean currents are not generally been part of the climate models... sigh this is not the place to debate science anymore.
melt
Judging by your last paragraph, I would take anything you learned in your "grammer" school with a grain of salt......
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil