This is basically what Pruitt, and most Skeptics, have been saying all along
Pruitt clarifies on climate change
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt acknowledged Sunday that humans are contributing to climate change.
“There’s a warming trend, the climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that change in some measure,” Pruitt said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The real issue is how much we contribute to it and measuring that with precision,” said the EPA chief, whose appointment was greeted with great concern by environmental activists.
Essentially, it boils down to what most Skeptics always say: the argument is not on warming, because the Earth has warmed roughly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850. The argument is on causation. Skeptics say it is mostly/solely caused by nature. Members of the Cult of Climastrology say it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Yet, if that’s what Warmists believe, why do so few practice what they preach? Why are their solutions always to tax Other People and instituted more Big Centralized Government?
Less than a month ago, Pruitt said carbon emissions are not “a primary contributor” to global warming.
“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 said last month on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
That’s supposed to read as some sort of opposite from what Pruitt stated Sunday, but, it’s really the same thing.
The International Business Times also thinks this is a Big Deal, that Pruitt has made some sort of concession. What’s missing is that Warmists have to prove their assertion that this warm period is different from all the other ones in that it is caused by mankind. So far, they have failed to do that. Because we say so is not science.
And “skeptics” have little evidence to support their claim, as their position is based on ideology, not science.
Ahem, little dumbass…
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/9/19/what-exactly-is-the-science-underlying-climate-alarmism
TEACH admits:
Does this mean the scientists did not manipulate the temperature record?? Or does it mean you’re accepting fraudulent data? Or did the scientists cook the books but the Earth was really warming anyway, i.e., they “framed” a guilty climate?
This is one of the problems “skeptics” have – for a decade they denied the Earth was warming (some still do). Now, most “skeptics” admit they were wrong for years, that in the face of overwhelming direct and indirect evidence they admit that the Earth is warming.
Why is it warming? Most scientists, most people, all major scientific organizations, major religions, corporations, governments etc accept that man-generated CO2 is causing this bout of rapid warming. The “skeptic” cult is made up mostly of conservative Americans, suggesting a political motive. It so happens that the far-right minority has taken control of the US government.
As Teach and many other normal, rational people have pointed out to you numerous times. We do not, and have never, denied that the climate is/has been changing. What we deny is causation. But you know this already.
What can’t be explained to the ignorant, easily propagandized and brain washed is that academic “scientists†are required to pledge allegiance to groupthink dogmas and political correctness. Things which should not be a part of a pofessional “scientists†portfolio. Modern educational systems have become an integral part of decadent mainstream culture, drawn to the celebrity mainstream. Such a “status culture†leads its adherents to cut corners in the quest for celebrity status.
What really scares me is the effect these idiots are having on the next generation that will be in power all too soon. These people are being convinced that 400PPM CO2 is a bad thing and that levels need to be reduced to at least 300PPM. This is dangerously close to the point that photosynthesis in plants stops. Around 170PPM. As plants die, so do we. It’s that simple and these idiots are pushing this idea. Another good reason to not let levels fall to 300PPM is that plants begin to be CO2 starved. They become less resistant to disease and drought. And food yields decrease to about 40% of what they are now. The real fact is that higher CO2 levels is better for plants and yields. There is a reason greenhouse growers keep CO2 levels in the greenhouse around 1000PPM.
These people, all in the name of “saving the Earth”, may actually be destroying it.
One of the loonier conspiracy theorists here just cited:
That sounds like Denying warming to me.
The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the Earth to retain more heat. It would be surprising if it weren’t warming – that’s why the so-called skeptics crowed about the so-called pause. After a few years of record heat the “pause” has been forgotten by skeptics. Now, you Deny that you Denied warming – is causation.
nh typed:
LOL. Seriously, that is what really scares you?? Relax. CO2 will not be reduced to 300 ppm, much less 170 ppm. For the past nearly 1 million years, atmospheric CO2 has cycled between about 180 to 300 ppm. Lower during the glacial epochs, higher during the interglacials (such as the current Holocene). Atmospheric CO2 has rapidly increased since the 1800s, up from 280 ppm to 400 ppm and still climbing. Where did the increase come from? Isotope analyses prove the increase came from fossil fuels. In fact, we’ll be lucky to keep atmospheric CO2 below 500 ppm.
Based on what we know, if we stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere today… CO2 would gradually drop to around 280 ppm – which appears to be the carbon cycle equilibria during interglacial periods (by gradually, we mean many hundreds of years). So unless we start the wholesome removal of existing CO2 from the atmosphere, you have little to worry about. Our CO2 is here to stay for a good long while. Neither you, your kids, your grandkids nor your grandkids grandkids will have to worry about starving plants of CO2.
Even at 400 ppm the Earth will continue to warm until it reaches a new equilibrium where the Sun energy received is offset by the infrared radiation re-emitted from Earth to space. What is unclear is what is that new temperature “setpoint”.
That is just not true. WUWT ran stories Denying warming up until a couple of years ago. Deniers still argue that the temp record has been corrupted. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Until the end of the so-called “pause” skeptics had said warming was over.
Why has it warmed so much this past century?
Define “so much”, little dumbass.
Anyone? Why has it warmed so much and so rapidly this past century?
Scientists accept the evidence that it is from the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century. Based on what is known about the capacity of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation, this theory is at once consistent with the empirical evidence and with physics.
What do the unScientists believe? That the Earth rapidly and significantly warms and cools without cause? That Brigid, Goddess of Weather, Water and Poetry controls the climate? An as yet undiscovered physical principle?
Scientists proposed hypotheses, e.g., the Sun is warmer, cosmic rays change the cloud layer, CO2, the measurements were spurious (i.e., heat island effect), fewer volcanoes (i.e., less aerosol), waste heat from our machines and activities, the Earth is releasing more internal heat etc etc. Only the CO2 theory has stood the test of time, not only by scientists eliminating the other hypotheses but also by direct confirmatory evidence.
In order for theory to be viable it must be tested and provide reliable predictions repeatedly.
So far the “CO2 theory” has relied only on assumptions.
“CO2 theory has stood the test of time.” BS. It’s still an unproven hypothesis. None of the other factors have been disproven. “Confirmatory evidence.” More BS. Warming doesn’t equal cause of warming. “Scientists accept the. Evidence that it’s from a huge…” And more BS. Many scientists don’t. And that anybody “accepts” anything doesn’t make it true. But you know that. “What is unclear is the new temperature setpoint.” No, what is unclear, and unproven, is that additional CO2 will cause any of the disasters that the bedwetters claim almost daily. Without that, they have nothing