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.
that's why it takes someone with knowledge and experience to lead this effort. Just kidding, the POTUS and I are golf buddies...
How To Go To Heaven
According to the holy Word of God in the King James Bible!
It is very simple to be saved and takes only a minute to explain. Please let me show you how to get to Heaven from the Bible, God's Word...
Man is a Sinner in the Eyes of a Holy God.
Isaiah 53:6, âoeAll we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.â
Romans 3:19, âoeNow we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.â
John 3:3, âoeJesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.â
Romans 3:10, âoeAs it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.â
Romans 3:23, âoeFor all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.â
There is a Price For Our SinâBurning in Hell Forever.
Romans 6:23, âoeFor the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.â
Romans 5:12, âoeWherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.â
2nd Thessalonians 1:8, âoeIn flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.â
Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.â
Revelation 21:8, âoeBut the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.â
Jesus paid that price by dying on the cross and shedding His blood; Christ was buried and bodily rose again the third day!
Romans 5:8, âoeBut God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.â
John 3:16, âoeFor God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â
1st Timothy 1:15, âoeThis is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.â
1st Peter 1:18-19, âoeForasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradit
Lock em up.
and this is why many people hope this amazing administration completes its work replacing all the bias judges with properly vetted not-anti-conservative judges. obama almost destroyed our america by appointing MANY THOUSANDS of liberal biased judged across the country doing terrible judgements like this one. we are now absolute taking america back
It was nice knowing you. But now you're just getting in the way of the current administration. You were signed into law by a Democrat, so expect to be repealed soon by a Republican majority Congress.
Watch this become the new one. Then we all can sit back and watch in horror at our society as it continues to define itself as the worshiper of lies.
They would have passed legislation preventing the EPA from regulating CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make this case moot.
But they did not. Leaving the door open after the GOP is swept out of office.
Makes you wonder why Repubs even bother talking about climate change, deficits, medical spending, if they never plan on passing legislation to shore up their beliefs.
No not really - we already know why they don't do it. They like their partners in crime the Democratic Party only care about the $4 trillion they spend every year. They are corporate stooges bought and paid for until the heat death of the universe.
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
It's a religious one.
It is, in effect, a legal demand that a pre-determined conclusion be reached, leaving no room for disagreement.
That's not science. That's faith.
Pruitt is the uber swamp thing. He'll appeal this all the way up claiming separation of branches or something. Once he's out of office he'll get sued and audited for the rest of his life.
Denial of an assertion does not infer a counterfactual contrapositive.
Pruitt must have a stash of transparent, secret science that is also called "Pruitt magic."
He is busy trying to get his wife a job at chick-filet... You know, important stuff.
I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.
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
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies. The same mountain of peer-reviewed studies could potentially be presented as the evidence, And in order to explain it to the court --- some scribbled notes containing skeptical arguments made against the validity of parts of each study "showing/claiming warming caused by humans".
If humans AREN'T causing warming AND you don't claim to know the real cause, then Wth are the courts even expecting?
A study is not the required thing to show that a previous set of study's speculations are not persuasive.
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P.. There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We heil him in the morning,
We zieg him late at night.
Oh, Hitler, my Hitler,
He is my heart's delight!
We goose step in the ballroom,
We goose step in the hall,
Oh Hitler, my Hitler!
We love you most of all!
It's going to be fun watching Trump die in Federal Prison either way.
Remember it exists, and makes rock so hot it melts. That's about the only way to explain it.
The mere fact that this is even a thing is frustrating as hell.
Now, the EPA SHOULD be utilizing science to come up with its recommendations and conclusions, but it's just gut level instinct at this point, most of which is driven by corporate or political mandate.
Actual science looks at a situation and asks questions, attempting to find the answers to those questions, or presenting theories attempting to break those theories. That takes time, effort, and some modicum of intelligence. I don't see much of any of that being presented by either "side" of this case. Just one person saying, "uh huh," and another saying, "nuh huh." And round and round we go.
Best brain in Moscow right here!
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand. First, you have to prove global warming is happening, Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation. And with a solar minimum coming a mini ice age may be in the offing. Then assuming global warming, per the judges order Pruitt must prove a negative. And the parameters of that proof must be established. Do cow farts constitute man made global warming, and if so can we offset it by elimination of termites worldwide, the number one methane contributor? In the 1970s scientists floated the premise we were on the cusp of an ice age, and to mitigate that threat proposed melting the polar ice caps by spreading lampblack over them.
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose. But the actual authors of the papers used to generate this statistic say the study is in error, because their paper was misinterpreted, they didn’t conclude there was global warming, they said global warming was occurring but it wasn’t manmade, they said global warming was occurring but it was a normal fluctuation, they said global warming was occurring but the effects would not me drastic, or global warming was occurring but it would be potentially beneficial. So, consensus is not at all been achieved.
For humor points Pruitt needs to get some of the Russian climatologists to testify regards their theory that we are entering an ice age.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Are you sure you want to see where Pruitt pulled his claims from? Isn't there enough Goatse as it stands?
This place is a DUMP! Slashdot SUCKS! I am NEVER COMING HERE AGAIN!!! That's OK for you, 'cuz I've always used afblockers. FOAD, FOAD, FOAD!
Me an my logician buddies have reached consensus that it is not possible to prove a negative. Now we will a few hundred million dollars to study why that is.
See...that is how you do science.
Neither will anyone else.
We will be feeding you to the Frost Giants, however.
Carry on your pitiful life.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
This must be John Bannon, posting from the commode again.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
That's a silly reductionist position. The EPA is a government agency that has both a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, as well as a responsibility to the well being of *citizens*. The "environment" is only a proxy here for protecting humans, and we must *obviously* take off the table those things that protect the "environment" but harm people.
Their default action should always be "what policy balances the costs and benefits for the people".
if humans are the problem or not is not relevant. Relevant is that humans have been poisoning the environment, the air, the water, the ground. CO2 problem is nonsense, less CO2 will not make our world better. Not burning fossil fuels will make our world better, but not because of the CO2, but because of the N and S parts, and the heavy metals they put in the air. And the large amounts of plastic waste. Well it seems people want to make everything a political statement....
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made. I don't think that's possible. We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer. Lots and lots of research, but nothing that even comes close. When you have thousands of models, and thousands of different results, seems that there is something that points more toward uncertainty than certainty in the models. Is it likely that man is causing SOME warming? Without a doubt. How much? Cannot be proven, nor disproved.
The Judge's Order is untenable.
It is generally accepted as fact that it is impossible to prove a Negative.
IOW, you cannot provide EVIDENCE that something DIDN'T occur.
Think about it. Especially since you can't go back in time and remove the humans, then wait and see if the climate behaves in a significantly different manner. There are simply too many uncontrolled (and uncontrollable!) variables.
Reality is SO much more complicated than a computer simulation (especially one that is fed shit data).
You rarely hear from them anymore, but there are still some conservatives in the Republican party, even though most of them have become non-idealistic. But there's just enough of them, and conservatives are pro-science (you don't just throw away practical knowledge; leave that kind of bullshit to Stalin!) and they support the regulation of pollution, mainly because such regulation is so much cheaper than mitigating the damage caused by the pollution.
As it happens, the conservative position is totally compatible with Democrats, so there just aren't the votes to switch to a pro-pollution stance.
When people say Trump is the most dishonest and corrupt person in Washington, or they say it about Pai, I am pretty sure they are totally forgetting about this Pruitt piece of shit, because those other anti-American assholes aren't even close.
Although perhaps Pruitt isn't as overtly corrupt as, say, Fritz Hollings was (I am pretty sure that shitstain was the worst of the worst), and surely won't accomplish as much evil over his brief tenure, Hollings is retired and isn't in Washington anymore. That leaves Scott Pruitt as America top criminal-in-plain-site.
Anyone who assassinates Scott Pruitt would be doing America (and also the whole world, incidentally) a great favor, but before you line up to sign up, heed this: the president is seriously floating the idea that he can pardon himself of his crimes. (This is actually happening!) It remains to be seen if the rest of the government will tolerate it, but if it happens, I suggest that the president himself act as Pruitt's hitman. I don't know if Trump has ever experienced the rush of murdering someone (he probably has, but I haven't heard any such stories), but if he hasn't done it yet, maybe this is the one.
C'mon, Donald: murder Pruitt. Not for policy or because he's even more anti-American than you are, but just for fun. And then pardon yourself. You know you can do it, and you know you'll enjoy it. And it might ease America's acceptance of your trans-Nixonian above-the-law stance. It's a good move and it's not like you can't just replace him with someone just as criminally-minded.
Seriously, Mr. President, just think about it. It'll make you #1. Forever.
History awaits.
If you can't figure out Science, denying it's existence is not going to help.
Like, everyone believes the same religion, right?
Science has proof.
Just like Courts, where all these Traitors are going to end up.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
no one ever asked epa to provide "proof" that global warming exists
Conservatives have asked, on numerous occasions. It has been provided as research papers, peer reviewed. And in some cases the data has been collected from multiple sources. And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you weren't given an answer.
tl;dr- climate change is occurring. oceans are warming. global changes in weather is inevitable. these changes is caused, at least partially, by human activity. these are the things we know. ask me in 10 years and I can give you an answer with more detail and be able to predict even more.
I'm looking at Pruitt's wording, and I have to say, he isn't incorrect the way he worded it. CO2 isn't the primary cause of climate change. That would be the Milankovich cycles. CO2 is causing it to change at an accelerated rate though. Semantics, but whatever.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
but there's Youtube videos of a guy debating flat earthers. They've got all sorts of explanations.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'll preface this by saying that I'm a non-smoker. I'm bringing this up because I'm sick of fanciful research claims... actual facts should be convincing arguments by themselves without having to inflate the results.
This reminds me of that time in the 1990s when the Surgeon Generals' office produced a report saying that cigarettes contain over 2,000 chemicals, a statement that was picked up and repated by many media outlets and other government departments around the world.
The Surgeon Generals' office was forced to retract that report when they could not actually produce said list of 2,000 chemicals. Yet that number is still being quoted in current government literature, e.g.: a Spit Tobacco Preventation Network document hosted by the Texas Department of State Health Services (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/region1/documents/tmp-SmokelessTobacco.pdf).
I'm pretty sure the top cause of warming is the heat given off by nuclear reactions. Some in the sun, but mostly the heat from nuclear decay in the Earth's core. Remove those and we wouldn't be warming.
That's not what he meant though of course. He meant "lalalalalala tax cuts and regulation cuts for donors lalalalalalala". Same as most of the Republicans in office the last thirty odd years.
Don't force your morality on me.
CO2 isn't the primary cause of climate change. That would be the Milankovich cycles.
It is a significant contribution but not strictly true. Milankovich cycles count for up to 23% from trough to peak. We're not starting from either the top or bottom so we're looking at an even smaller contribution than that theoretical maximum.
Maybe if Bernie won and the next generation learned some basic mathematics with their free college education we'd be able to have better discussions and make better policy decisions. Until then we have a lot of nitwits sharing their opinions. Worse, some of the really clever nitwits sound scientific or speak in half truths.
Our falsely elected leader, who is working directly for Putin, has devolved America into Chaos over his 500 days in office.
His only "Accomplishment" was giving all his billionare buddies a Huge tax cut, and everyone else a sixpack.
In the meantime, his cronies have been arrested, charged, and are either awaiting trial, or have served a sentence and been deported.
I'm just waiting for them to fly Air Force One to russia with all the criminals onboard, and try to set up a "Government in Exile."
This is what happens when you remove school funding for 30 years; Americans are too stupid to recognize Propaganda, and Outright Lies.
Welcome to America!
Now get the fuck off my lawn, or we shoot you.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
He's broken so many laws, he better hope the Repubs stay in power forever, or that the Russian President is saving a pardon for him.
I hope they send him and Trump to Angola (Deep South, not the country), they'd like the other inmates, I'm sure. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Theee cheers for Pruitt!
He'd like it there.
Hunter S. Thompson was a bastard, but a heck of a guy; this guy using his Nick obviously never knew him, or read any of his books.
We've been in Bat(shit crazy) country for 500 days and counting, lol.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
The Christian vision is not primarily about "going to Heaven when you die." The Christian vision is the kingship of Jesus coming down to Earth.
And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Where are the test Earth's where we control everything from the magnetosphere to the sun and test only changes in CO2 emissions?
If 'Bernie won' his free education giveaway would completely flatten the education system. We would all get free junior college degrees.
Better discussions? You're kidding, right?
See, Pruitt thought you meant reviewed by the Peer-in-Chief.
That's the only peer-reviewed science he "believes" in.
That and the Little Red Handbook of Russian Operatives Destroying America ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
At last a factual comment. Here are some more:
CO2 has been slightly higher in the past, many times, it always stops rising at about the level we are at now and goes back down sharply. CO2 oscillates between a floor and a ceiling level, it has an observed negative feedback when it hits those levels. There is no possibility of positive feedback causing a runaway greenhouse effect. Ice ages are the default state of climate. CO2 rises after the end of ice ages, not before. CO2's effect on radiation has a log-dependency, each doubling in CO2 has equal effect. CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, only water vapor is. When that water vapor condenses into clouds it has a global cooling effect by reflecting sunlight and a stabilizing effect by trapping ground heat. Deserts, which are without clouds are on average hotter, but have wide temperature swings and are cold at night. High CO2 increases plant growth. High CO2 cannot cause ocean acidification due to the very strongly buffered solution and the relative masses of the buffers in the ocean vs. the CO2 in the atmosphere.
It has been warmer in the past in several periods than it is now, for instance in the Medieval era and Roman times. This warmth was beneficial and not harmful.
The climate models and their assumptions of positive feedback have been proven wrong by their failure to predict the past 15-20 years of temperatures. Even if they were correct, they predict that reducing CO2 emissions to any remotely achievable level (say 1990s world levels) would have a negligible effect, and even that predicted effect is now known to be exaggerated.
Shipping industry to China, which runs on coal plants, will actually increase warming, particularly since they emit huge quantities of soot which blackens the landscape. Carbon credits will not work as anything but a boondoggle benefiting existing industries with large emissions and parasitic traders of these carbon indulgences.
"Green energy" will not work without impossibly massive and expensive energy storage, solar and wind are too intermittent to be relied upon for base-load power, even averaged over large areas, and they are in fact far more environmentally harmful and polluting than nuclear energy.
Welp found the contrarian.
They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You ain't Einstein.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Both solar radiation and water vapor are more important factors than CO2.
Dude you just mixed up a bunch of half related facts with shit assumptions and false forecasts... just to fit your incorrect world view.
He should provide all the documentation which demonstrates that he has stopped beating his wife.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Science you say? Ok lets talk about gender in the context of science. Liberals say cutting your dick off makes you a girl... science not so much.
There's zero science in the current EPA, as well as most of Trump's administration. He cannot produce any real science because he has none. Or at most, he'll be giving a bunch of stuff that have some pretty curious links to coal corporations, produced in the late 70s or something.
And it'll either be blatant lies that wouldn't pass peer review, or just something vague like "more evidence is needed", which btw, we already have.
I needs no repeating, but there is OVERWHELMING evidence and consensus that climate change is man made by the entire scientific community. And this includes people who have been studying it for a good part of their lifetimes. It includes an incredibly substantial body of evidence from multiple perspectives. It comes from analysis with historical records, measurements taken from recent years, modeling and prediction, how the planet is already changing, and the relationship with all sorts of pollution that you can go out and see today.
I don't think deniers get how massive the body of evidence is. We even have researchers from a couple of decades ago hired by oil companies saying it was happening back then, only of course these companies chose to hide the research and exploit the information for themselves instead of releasing it in public.
"I doubt it" by brainless politicians and by the coal industry do not get a pass. I don't know what else is needed for deniers to get this, but I suspect it's gotten to such an extreme that they'd rather drown in a coastal city while shouting it's not happening rather than considering the idea that they might just have been wrong all this time. It doesn't take a whole lot to step out of your cult-like status and think a bit.
All the extreme weather events that are likely related to climate change happening several times a year and somehow it's still hard to believe. This sort of stubborness only ends in death. Asking to produce science will do nothing, because it was never backed by it. It will eventually get to a point where it's either them with their baseless claims or it's us paying the price for their ignorance.
The worst thing of it all is that even in the fictional scenario that they were right, there is simply no reason to be against the general measures against climate change. US is just like the anti-social entitled asshole idiot that behaves like a baby while the rest of the world is taking responsibility. Coal, oil and gas dependancy have always been a health hazard, it benefits no one to keep it, and even countries that were highly dependant on those are realizing after too long a time that it's simply not worth the damages it causes... you know, countries like China, famous for cities so heavily polluted during some days of the year with coal mines that people were simply collapsing and dying on the streets. Both China and India already have some generations condemned to live with lung related and respiratory diseases, why would anyone want to follow their past model?
Do people really want to get into scenarios like those, or go back to industrial revolution era pollution levels? Like, fortunately the global economy, scientific community, people who already accepted man made climate change as a reality, and people overall against Trump's EPA have enough power to continue the transition... coal dependancy will end whether politicians like it or not. But if it wasn't for that, de-regulation and climate change denial would logically end up resulting in pollution levels of the same scale of China and India.
And it's not like the US isn't already littered with superfund sites to show what happens when things like that gets ignored.
It's incredibly sad to see how entire groups of people cannot learn anything from history. Makes me think that in the end, our species will meet it's mass extinction event way sooner than other species because of our so called great "intelligence".
The Earth is warming and Mars is warming. The cause is obviously extra-terrestrial, probably solar.
If all whites die, it would be the end to white privilege and all racism, so it would be a net benefit for the world.
Mod me down if you want, but it is the truth.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn places the planets in their supposedly observed positions whenever those "pesky astronomers" make their studies, then moves them back again afterwards to their correct positions orbiting the planet Pluto!
That sound? Is of the IPU traveling at 0.75c, relativistic effects included!
It's a transparent salad bowl turned upside down, a co2 cartridge, and a thermometer. Feel free to do the experiments yourself.
Sometimes it is difficult to produce evidence though, for things that are clearly correct. It's a bit like when geeks challenge Homeopathy and call it fake. Millions of people use it daily yet 'science' labels it fiction. Just because science is lagging shouldn't stop people being able to use powerful homeopathic medicine. I like to call it 'Post-Science' - things that people know in their gut but cannot prove to boffins in white coats - yet!
"I would not agree that X" is not the same thing as "I claim not X". The initial burden of proof rests with those that claim X. On supplying an argument, Pruitt would be challenged with debunking that argument, not defending "I claim not X".
Also, "A mountain of peer-reviewed studies" is not an argument. Select one pertinent study to start with to represent the argument for (so not a 1000 page monstrosity but something convincing to a well-read adult) and allow Pruitt time to respond to it.
I hear Pruitt's scientific proof will be based on the fact that a particularly nasty storm having no connection at all to Global Warming apparently blew up out of a bunch of Chick-fil-A emails.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
There are recent papers that disprove greenhouse gas theory, and demonstrate that ghe is caused by adiabatic compression of the atmosphere by gravity. Unfortunately for the greenhouse gas theorists, it removes the foundation of their argument. Concensus is political, I mean scientific concensus was the planets and sun rotated around the earth until Gallilaeo proved otherwise.
Ghe theory on back radiation isn't hard to disprove, try insulating yourself with cold CO2 from a fire extinguisher and see if the back radiation it emits that originated from your body's warmth makes you feel warmer.
There is no way to produce something as "without doubt" because you will insist that you DO doubt it, even when there is no reason, EVEN IF YOU ARE LYING.
The case is closed. AGW is real, caused by human emissions and CO2 is the major driver of the change. Get over yourself, asshole.
If you want to see the proof, go to the IPCC home page and read the report, then read the papers used in the report. Feel free to claim you doubt it all you like, YOUR doubt does not make a lick of difference since you're in deep denial.
You don't even know what models are nor what their results are, all you have is the trollidiocy of the denial echo chamber.
No, he is incorrect. It is not milankovich cycles that are the biggest driver because the cycle is currently in a cooling phase, so since it is warming, there must be a change BIGGER than the milankovich cycle changing it in the other direction.
You moronic asshole.
CO2 is a pollutant when it's a byproduct we do not need or want that produces a negative outcome. Your agreement to the term pollutant is irrelevant since you're merely contrarian and will disagree with anything if you feel like your political outlook requires it.
You are not important.
Quite why you want the government treated fairly when you were really shitting on the government when a black dude from the wrong party was in charge a few years ago is something patently obvious.
BTW when you state that the global changes (i.e. warming!) is caused 'partially' by human activity you are right... ...in the same way you would be right that when a middelaged person is run over by a truck that his/her dead was caused 'partially' by the collision. Since he/she was already middel aged there was allways going to be some concern about his/her health anyway, right?
Just to point out: the evidence that human activity is primary and, for all intents and purposes, solely responsible for the current global warming are enormous.
See my subject & letting you f yourself dumbass https://it.slashdot.org/commen... you inferior moron.
* Don't try "patronize" me BOY when I can show you are less than ZERO fucker... easily.
APK
P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you... apk
See subject SOYBoy (rotflmao) in your UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "courageous" trolling you "not man" - LMAO!
(You know - I understand your SOYMilk & Bisphenol A "notman" SOYBoy formulas have addled your brains but that takes the cake for "illogic logic" from "your kind", lol!)
* The other poster's not I but they are making you get all "triggered" when you see your addled thinking fools nobody but your sick in the head chemically NEUTERED (lol) selves, lmao!
APK
P.S.=> Classic - one for my bookmarks... apk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Being peer reviewed does not make a study valid. Containing actual facts makes a study valid.
I can write 50 pages of horse poop about climate change and as long as I find a dozen peers who believe in the same horse poop that I do, I can publish a "peer-reviewed mountain of horse poop."
Elected people (like presidents) should be running the EPA.
Not judges. Not "their evidence" or whatever.
Not helping is that Mueller wants to decide who is in the White House.
... when the stigma of fucking your cousin will be lifted. My cousin is smokin'!
Also, Brawndo's got what plants crave.
#MAGA
You're confusing gender as a social construct and biological sex.
It's forgivable because often words used in one discipline has a different or more specific meaning than the same word in general use. What gender means to the soft sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology is going to be different than what it means to a biologist, botanist, or medical doctor. But typically you'll find the word "sex" used instead of "gender" in most of the hard science, as sex has a precise definition in those fields.
Science openly admits that biological sex is more complex than a simple binary system that the XY sex-determination system implies. It becomes problematic in the rare cases where a person has a disorder like androgen insensitivity syndrome or the even rarer condition of aneuploidy (extra chromosomes).
Our roles in society are important. People who have difficulty finding their role tend to have stress to the point of being crippled by them. They can become acutely depressed, antisocial, turn to drug use, or even suicidal.
We can coexist as a people better if we operate an inclusive society where roles that were traditionally determined by sex in the 19th century and earlier is now determined by each individual in the 20th and 21st century.
Ultimately I am not inconvenienced if someone with a penis wears make-up, a dress, and uses a feminine pronoun. Sure it's different than how I was raised. But I'm able to adapt to other people and treat them with respect. People who are too rigid in their behavior and who cannot treat their neighbors with respect are the real burden on society.
If I use the wrong pronoun, it was not an intentional slight, and I will quickly adjust. No harm, no foul, we can move past such a minor thing instead of quibbling about it.
He doesn't care. He just wants to be smug without having to do the work.
Heat flow from the earth's core is 0.08W/m^2, compared with an average solar insolation of 340 W/m^2 (which has been known to trend by 0.5W/m^2 over periods of several decades) and an additional forcing of almost 2 W/m^2 from the CO2 humans have recently added.
... unless you're suggesting that the souls recently added to Hell from our burgeoning population have caused satan's furnaces to suddenly heat up?
So, no, heat from the earth's core is not really a top contender. And why should it be? Even if this number were much larger, there's no reason Earth's core should suddenly warm the earth much faster than it did in previous centuries and millenia
Correction: the peak insolation at the top of atmosphere (1361 W/m^2) has been known to trend by 0.6W/m^2 over periods of several decades, not the average insolation. See insolation graph.
He should just use all the accurate data provided by Michael Mann to prove his argument in his legal prosecution of Mark Steyn. Oh, wait....
The utter irony that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency should be a climate change denier.. do you people understand what the rest of the world thinks of you?
Scott Pruitt is a cesspool of corruption, entitlement, and imperial ambition. There's no science to be found there, just political maneuvering.
The head of the EPA should be fired immediately for misspending public funds, failing in his role as EPA leader, and incompetence. But then he never should have been hired either, he was a notorious basher of the EPA with nothing positive to bring to that Agency.