Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #26958
- Started
- Last post
- 33,468 Responses
- R_Kercz0
https://arstechnica.com/science/…
"US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry have been making some headlines for publicly rejecting the conclusions of climate science. But in between wrongly claiming that climate scientists just don’t know how much of a contribution humans make to recent global warming (answer: roughly 100 percent), they have also been parroting a new line—that climate science needs a “red team” to take on the scientific consensus."
- The Trump Shit Show Goes On...utopian
- https://m.popkey.co/…fadein11
- it's non stoplowimpakt
- Climate Change has been the discussion for decades and not one thing done about it. EPA hasn't created any protection against it. Just a lot of hot air.omg
- That's not remotely true omg.monospaced
- The most glaringly obvious of their impacts are auto emissions regulations and Energy Star ratings. Those you can see with your own dumbfuck eyes.monospaced
- But please, go on and share more lies you've been brainwashed to believe. It's super funny and we know you're here to entertain. Jump troll jump!monospaced
- If only your examples actually had a measurable climate impact on global temperatures. You'd think regulations from the 90s would be able to produce such proof.omg
- Not that it matters because you're talking about pollution and confused, with your brain on the wash cycle thinking it is the same as Climate Change.omg
- Air pollution and climate change are very related, as is our energy footprint. I'm not confused at all, little buddy.monospaced
- calculate the co2 emissions without star rating and mpg requirements and subtract the emissions with. Result is the reduction in co2. basic math.dorf
- oh wait ... omg is one of those science deniers who doesn't think mankind has had any impact on climate change or the viable ecology of the planet's environmentmonospaced
- Answer: human contribution is 100%. So Volcanoes, and natural forest fires = 0%?omg
- human activity outweighs any volcanic/natural emissions by a large factor.dorf
- 71% of Earth's surface is water. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any anthropogenic source.omg
- Then throw in other natural CO2 sources such decomposition, plant, respiration, forest fires, and cow farts, you've got yourself a hoax.omg
- @omg, volcanoes, natural fires, etc, do not account for a significant amount, no ... and their amounts would not be causing the changes we are experiencingmonospaced
- but your'e a denier, your stance is contested by literally 100% of all scientists who study it, and you're proud of that idiocymonospaced
- @mono You're forgetting how much water and underwater wildlife we have that emits Co2omg
- Anthropogenic Co2 sources make up a 27% compared to all others, including factories, chemical refineries, and industrial activityomg
- The other 73% of anthropogenic CO2 sources is from Electricity.omg
- you're following a myth that carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels.omg
- co2 is not the only source, correct, but the ocean-atmosphere interface balances itself out. input = output. when burning fossil fuels, we create a surplusdorf
- which the ocean cannot balance.
surplus explained: https://vimeo.com/27…dorf