Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today

[malaise]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/31/scientists-understood-the-climate-150-years-ago-better-than-the-epa-head-today
<snip>
The current head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt does not believe or understand long-known principles of climate science and basic physics. Recently he claimed on CNBC that carbon dioxide is 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’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.

There are two undeniable ironies in this statement. First, taken at face value it would suggest that we actually need to do more analysis – but the current administration is proposing draconian cuts in our climate science research budget. They are doing just the opposite of what he recommends.

The second irony is that scientists have known about the importance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas for well over 100 years. There is no debate among any reputable scientists that carbon dioxide is the most important human emitted greenhouse gas. Furthermore, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 43%. These are facts.

So, I wanted to revisit some of the first studies on carbon dioxide and its effect on the climate to put into perspective how backwards Pruitt is. One of the first works, and certainly a seminal study was completed in 1827 by Jean Baptiste Fourier. An excellent summary of the contributions of his work is provided here.

[Adrahil]

1. Pruitt claims to follow John Chrity's ideas.

Christy claims the atmosphere is relatively insensitive to green house gasses. He's woven a plausible hypothesis as to why. But there's a problem: his hypothesis is at odds with actual measured data. That doesn't stop Christy from continuing to spout his nonsense, or Pruitt from repeating it.

[Ligyron]

2. They search far and wide to find the one or two scientists who deny global warming or it's

link to fossil fuels and they are usually specialist in another field altogether and/or receiving huge grants from Big Oil and Coal.

Of all the harmful things the Repugs do, ignoring long term global warming will cause the most damage. We can replace legislatures and RW regimes in two or four years but it's likely we'll never turn this aircraft carrier around in time.

I and anybody else who lives on the ocean can see the effects daily as our beaches disappear and seawater intrudes into our water supply.

Our reefs are dying year by year down here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. It's the authoritarian mind set which is the opposite of the scientific mindset.

Authoritarians and RWAF seek confirmation of beliefs and pass over contradictory evidence or try to rationalize it away or change the subject or gish gallop.

Scientists seek contradictory evidence against their theories. If one of their theories is wrong, they would rather know it sooner than later so that they can more quickly get on the right track.

[Adrahil]

5. It's a prime example of outcome-based thinking.

They have an answer already and in their view, anything with justifies it must be promoted. At some level, they may even believe it. But it is at odds with the scientific method. A hypothesis cannot simply be plausible, it must actually eplain the evidence. But people like Pruitt are just looking for anything that they can use to squeeze out more profit. The fossil fuel industry of the early 21st century are the tobacco companies of the late 20th century.

[Dustlawyer]

7. All you need to do is follow the scientist's money to show their bias.

BP funded several universities marine biology and science programs to get favorable reports on the affect their oil and Corexit had on the Gulf. This is how they work. It is the same as giving big contributions to a Washington politician, they will bend over backward to do and say what the people paying them want!

[Mr. Ected]

4. Pruitt knows the truth

He simply represents a group of people who would rather steal some fast cash now than take any responsibility for Planet Earth long after their demise.

[Adrahil]

6. I suspect your right, but...

in my experience, many conservative science deniers are reasonably intelligent, but lack critical thinking skills. They seek to justify their positions in any way possible, rather than examining their positions in any critical way. Some of them believe their own nonsense because they have no developed the intellectual skills to see through the bullshit and lies. But I'm of the opinion that people like Pruitt KNOW they are peddling lies and it's all abut squeezing out more profit (see my post above about tobacco companies). Only now, he's actually in fucking charge of one of the organizations responsible for exposing the lies <sigh>.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. I agree...

I think it is a mixed bag when it comes to Conservative Science Deniers...The more business oriented ones probably know how the bad the environment really is but really don't care as long as they get theirs NOW! However, the ones who have a more religious background probably believe all the BS that is floating around or anything that will confirm their want for the same science institutions who poo-poo on their mythologies to also be wrong about the environment. Of course there is a lot of overlap.

[Le Gaucher]

8. The anti climate change guys are motivated and have big bucks to spare

My wife teaches at the University​ and yesterday she had a huge envelope delivered to her ( The sender was some 'Heartland Institute'

It had a book by some "non governmental international panel on climate change" a DVD and teaching materials.

How dare these bastards send psuedo science crap to professors??

[malaise]

10. It's fascist thinking

Do as I say - ignore facts

[Orsino]

11. Sesquicentennial for a lot of bad ideas in the Trump Administration. n/t

[Calculating]

12. Surely he's not actually this ignorant

He's just playing stupid to protect the economy. The alternative would be to recognize the fact that we're destroying the climate, and the only solutions would wreck the economy.