EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

CNBC.com

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is 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,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

“But we don’t know that yet. … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

Read the rest of the article here.

 

  • Very revealing his fear of Leftist term “Denialist”.

  • Louis Deaux

    The mathematics clearly shows he is correct. CO2 has essentially 2 X the RF gain of H2O at the molecular level according to the IPCC. However water has an atomic weight of just 18, while CO2 has a molecular weight of 44. Inasmuch as H2O weighs .409% of CO2, it means that an equal mass of CO2 requires 2.444 molecules of H2O. So in terms of comparative wights, Water is actually 122.2% more efficient than an equal wight of CO2 at RF gain (storing excess eK or Kinetic Energy).

    But there is 40 times as much water in the Atmosphere as CO2. Therefore, water alone is about 50 x as important as CO2 in terms of acting as a Greenhouse Gas (GHG).

    Furthermore, the term climate and its measurement (mean world-wide temperature or mwwT) as a temperature level is really a measure of total eK stored within the earth’s entire atmosphere at any given moment. Of course it is always fluctuating and so climate is constantly changing a little. Bigger swings in climate, primarily caused by various celestial mechanics (Milankovic Cycles) are the primary cause of ice ages and relatively brief inter-glacial periods like our present 14,000 year long Holocene.

    Real climate is the sum of three major components of the eK Atmospheric energy reservoir that leads us to a current measure of mwwT (288.4 Kelvin) or climate. Most of the earth’s black-body measure of atmospheric mwwT (about 248.4 Kelvin) is the result of the sun and all celestial mechanics just because the earth orbits in the Sun’s golden zone. Of the remaining 40 degrees K, about half comes as a result of friction and convective energy within the atmosphere and so it neither radiates away from earth or becomes part of the system strictly as a product of the GHG effect. The GHG blanket therefore causes about 20 K of the total of the earth’s climate which is actually the measure of ek >|0|.

    Therefore 1/50th of the GHG effect that contributes the final 20 degrees Kelvin is attributed to CO2 and 49/50ths is attributed to water. That means .4% of all GHG RFeK can be attributed to all atmospheric CO2. Of that, human activity is not likely more than 1/8th of the current total atmospheric store so .05% of all GHG related climate is attributed to human activity (at the worst.) But remember, climate is actually a measure of all mwwT>|0| (greater than absolute zero). Therefore, ALL HUMAN related CO2 contributes AT THE MOST 1/14th X 1/50th x 1/8th or .00001786 (.001786%) of the total of all eK stored in the current climate. As a measure of climate, this means that of our present climate at 288.4 Kelvin, the temperature without human activity would be 288.3485 Kelvin. The human contribution through CO2 has to be no more than .0515 Kelvin.

    Inasmuch as the entire warming of the last 175 years amounts to roughly half a degree kelvin, it means almost 95% of the warming has to be natural, or attributed to other things because the CO2 argument just doesn’t hold any fizz.

    • Christian Jonasson

      Ok and egen webbplats make energi what happen then…..

    • Excellent explanation.

    • John Duval

      What everybody hasn’t noticed, is that water vapour, which is by far the greatest greenouse gas, is not the cause of a greenhouse, but the result of it. It is only ever the result of heat energy, never the cause of it.

      So let’s say there is no vapour in the air at first, and then heat enters the system. Water evaporates, and so now there is vapour in the air. If new heat doesn’t arrive, that vapour will condense back to liquid again in a short time, so the next amount of heat that enters simply maintains the state of that (inititial) vapour (which was created by the first amount of heat). There is NEVER a feedback loop, for the whole thing can be reduced to one (aggregated) event (it can be analysed inductively as one input-output event).

      So the whole thing is a logic scam which gets everyone to fail to notice the inductive aspect. Everyone is tricked into imagining that the second bit of heat that enters gets trapped by the vapour produced by the first bit of heat, when such is simply not possible because a result can never be its own cause, and in this case, because the issue is only properly analysed inductively, there is in effect only one cause-event and one result-event.

      Commensurately, the idea of a feedback loop (which would have a positive RF) flies in the face of both the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics: it suggests a system which can pull itself off the ground by its own bootstraps.

      I can be contacted at jduval904@gmail.com

  • TheSecretary

    Only if there was a God who gave a ****what happens to man

  • greatguy999

    It’s true. CO2 is never a pollutant. All living beings exhale CO2.
    And plants need CO2 to manufacture food. It’s insane to even suggest that CO2 is a poison for the environment. It’s not.

  • Igor

    That’s great that people are talking about this openly! And it’s high time we discussed all the points of view on climate change. In oder to join efforts and not just claim that someone is right or wrong, but to start discussing together the solutions for this issue. In particular, for the sake of the solutions, since the changes are already obvious outside, and a lot of people have already experienced them. And while discussing what to do with climate we should be considering how to help those people who are already suffering from these changes. I wonder why there are actually enough debates on climate, but the victims are hardly ever a focul point in them. We should first of all develop a strategy involving all the world community in order to organize help to the victims and develop assistance programs for people who are becoming climate refugees. As no one knows what awaits for them in future and who will come to rescue to the ones in need. No doubt this is absolutely impossible without common human values. As everybody understands that if the foundation of the values collapses, the whole humanity will lose this fight against climatic changes. This is already obvious from the news reports about refugees, we are getting now. In such times the best science is the science on humanity, on eternal inner values which can help all of us. Such kinds of projects like this https://allatra.tv/en/article/the-climate-control-global-project help join efforts of people in this sphere, and the more initiatives like this develop the more humane the world will become, which means people will be able to overcome climate changes much easier.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.