If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   EPA chief Scott Pruitt admits global warming may be real. Fark: He thinks it will be good for humanity   ( apnews.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Climate change, Administrator Scott Pruitt, global warming, Fossil fuel, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Meteorology, climate scientists, scientific studies Pruitt  
•       •       •

3001 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2018 at 3:49 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-07 08:26:42 PM  
I think this is the Russian position on climate change. It's man made and they want it as it opens up vast amounts of resources in Siberia, as well as the fabled northwest passage for trade. So I'm not surprised.
 
2018-02-07 08:42:02 PM  
You guys are such pessimists.

You're the kind of people who could be run down by an ice cream truck and not even go, "Hey, ice cream!"
 
2018-02-07 10:03:14 PM  
See, you didn't think it through libby libs... just because you wanted them to believe in it, that didn't mean they were going to hate it as well!
 
2018-02-07 11:07:19 PM  
If you like living in a desert wasteland with temps in the hundreds, sure.
 
2018-02-07 11:20:22 PM  
Climate change isn't happening!

Okay, it's happening, but humans aren't causing it!

Okay, humans are causing it but it's a good thing!
 
2018-02-07 11:20:53 PM  
Outta all the shiattiness that climate change gives us, it is gonna have one good effect upon this world: the middle east will be green again. How so? There are a shiatton of dried lakebeds and rivers. Before the sea rises to claim cities like NYC, those lakebeds and dried rivers will be full of water.

i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 11:27:41 PM  
Nobody really wants to fix climate change.  Too much money to made shipping stuff between Europe and China via the Arctic
 
2018-02-08 12:52:18 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I think this is the Russian position on climate change. It's man made and they want it as it opens up vast amounts of resources in Siberia, as well as the fabled northwest passage for trade. So I'm not surprised.


I think there's also a bit of, "Mr. Putin, show us on this doll where the nasty iceberg touched you." One of the things The Arrival got right in its metaphor: the lizard-human overlords like it warm.

Anyway, time to print up the new signs, I guess:

Environmental Engineering Agency (EEA).
 
2018-02-08 03:52:51 AM  

koder: Nadie_AZ: I think this is the Russian position on climate change. It's man made and they want it as it opens up vast amounts of resources in Siberia, as well as the fabled northwest passage for trade. So I'm not surprised.

I think there's also a bit of, "Mr. Putin, show us on this doll where the nasty iceberg touched you." One of the things The Arrival got right in its metaphor: the lizard-human overlords like it warm.

Anyway, time to print up the new signs, I guess:

Environmental Engineering Agency (EEA).


They already have a bunch of military assets up in the artic covering the eventual NW passage.
 
2018-02-08 03:54:42 AM  
Its so odd how idiots decided to discuss whether climate change was real or not. That wasn't the debate at all, the debate was whether it was caused by human behaviour or not.

But retards gotta retard.
 
2018-02-08 04:06:14 AM  
Ask your typical Russian man-on-the-street what he thinks about global warming and he will tell you its great. They only see the short term benefits of a longer agricultural growing season and year round arctic seaport access. Forget about telling them how short this window of opportunity is likely to be, they have already long since been conditioned to be opportunists rather than pessimists.
 
2018-02-08 04:07:49 AM  
Still have a couple years to sell off Florida to some unsuspecting rubes.  Better get on it.
 
2018-02-08 04:25:42 AM  
simbasible.comView Full Size


Yeah, it's gonna be great.
 
2018-02-08 04:27:47 AM  
People won't care about climate change until it starts farking with the food supply... and by then it will be too late.
 
2018-02-08 04:30:22 AM  
Let's test this theory and lock him in a sauna.
 
2018-02-08 04:30:22 AM  
I always thought James Watt  was the worst possible Cabinet secretary. Pruitt proves me wrong.
 
2018-02-08 04:30:38 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: Its so odd how idiots decided to discuss whether climate change was real or not. That wasn't the debate at all, the debate was whether it was caused by human behaviour or not.

But retards gotta retard.


That wasn't the question.  It has been known we're the cause for decades.
The question was what to do about it, and their answer has been the only consistent bit of their position - nothing.
 
2018-02-08 04:30:44 AM  
"And a 2017 draft federal report that Pruitt's agency helped write says that by the end of the century global warming will add 4,500 to 9,000 deaths a year in the U.S. because of heat..."

A couple comments on that:

- All in all, that's a pretty low number
- That number is obviously fully meaninglessness as we have no idea what technology, healthcare, and social programs we'll have in 80 years.
- Since cold kills twice as many people than heat in the US (and 20 times more in the world), does that number take into account lives saved by warmer weather? https://www.google.com/amp/s​/amp.usato​day.com/amp/27657269
 
2018-02-08 04:30:52 AM  

Ketchuponsteak: Its so odd how idiots decided to discuss whether climate change was real or not. That wasn't the debate at all, the debate was whether it was caused by human behaviour or not.

But retards gotta retard.


Why not both?  People will, with a straight face, say "there's been no warming for 20 years" and then immediately afterwards say "but the polar caps on Mars are melting so it can't be humans causing it!"  To which the responses are "yes there has" and "Milankovitch cycles."  And even if the sun was putting out more energy (which it isn't) that disproves nothing.  It's entirely possible for one result to have more than one cause.  The lawn is wet, but it's raining, so therefore the sprinkler isn't on?
 
2018-02-08 04:39:05 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I think this is the Russian position on climate change. It's man made and they want it as it opens up vast amounts of resources in Siberia, as well as the fabled northwest passage for trade. So I'm not surprised.


At least it's an honest position.
Which is very rare in America.
"Sure it's real, but I don't care" is not a response I hear very often.
But it's the most popular position.
 
2018-02-08 04:47:11 AM  
Could use more global warming today. Burrrr.
 
2018-02-08 04:51:28 AM  
He's a fundie. He probably thinks that he'll get raptured before anything really bad happens.
 
2018-02-08 05:24:13 AM  
See, there's a "Goldilocks Zone" where there's just the right amount of warmth for most life to survive and actually be comfortable. And here we are seeing ourselves edging towards the other end of uncomfortableness.
 
2018-02-08 05:27:38 AM  
Population growth on Earth is just like an infection on a host.

The infection finds an advantage and proliferates until it overwhelms the host (aka, no longer has an energy/food source.)

Until we become symbiotic, we are doomed
 
2018-02-08 05:46:20 AM  

indifference_engine: The lawn is wet, but it's raining, so therefore the sprinkler isn't on?


More like the lawn is wet, the sprinkler is on and it is raining, therefore it is possible that either the sprinkler or the rain is not significant in evaluating why the lawn is wet but that question is moot now the lawn is wet and it is raining. The most likely situation is both are partly the cause, and stopping either (good luck trying to stop the rain) will not make the lawn dry and some mitigation of the negative effects of the wet lawn is the only sensible way forward. Trying to dry the lawn is as futile as pissing in the wind.

I would suggest putting on some boots, and a waterproof coat, just accepting it is a wet day and getting on with the jobs you need to do.

Or look like a loon trying to dry your lawn with towels whilst it is raining and the sprinkler is on.
 
2018-02-08 05:47:37 AM  

kayanlau: See, there's a "Goldilocks Zone" where there's just the right amount of warmth for most life to survive and actually be comfortable. And here we are seeing ourselves edging towards the other end of uncomfortableness.


We are moving the planet?

Or could it be you do not understand the meaning of 'goldilocks zone'?
 
2018-02-08 05:53:54 AM  

dready zim: indifference_engine: The lawn is wet, but it's raining, so therefore the sprinkler isn't on?

More like the lawn is wet, the sprinkler is on and it is raining, therefore it is possible that either the sprinkler or the rain is not significant in evaluating why the lawn is wet but that question is moot now the lawn is wet and it is raining. The most likely situation is both are partly the cause, and stopping either (good luck trying to stop the rain) will not make the lawn dry and some mitigation of the negative effects of the wet lawn is the only sensible way forward. Trying to dry the lawn is as futile as pissing in the wind.

I would suggest putting on some boots, and a waterproof coat, just accepting it is a wet day and getting on with the jobs you need to do.

Or look like a loon trying to dry your lawn with towels whilst it is raining and the sprinkler is on.


Or maybe we could start by turning the sprinkler off.  Sure the analogy breaks down here because the "sprinkler", i.e. carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels, is itself a side effect of keeping the house running.  So we can't just "turn it off."  But we can take steps to reduce our dependence on that method of running the house.  And, as you said, we need to take steps to mitigate the damage from, and adapt to the changes caused by our increasingly flooded lawn.
 
2018-02-08 05:55:47 AM  

indifference_engine: dready zim: indifference_engine: The lawn is wet, but it's raining, so therefore the sprinkler isn't on?

More like the lawn is wet, the sprinkler is on and it is raining, therefore it is possible that either the sprinkler or the rain is not significant in evaluating why the lawn is wet but that question is moot now the lawn is wet and it is raining. The most likely situation is both are partly the cause, and stopping either (good luck trying to stop the rain) will not make the lawn dry and some mitigation of the negative effects of the wet lawn is the only sensible way forward. Trying to dry the lawn is as futile as pissing in the wind.

I would suggest putting on some boots, and a waterproof coat, just accepting it is a wet day and getting on with the jobs you need to do.

Or look like a loon trying to dry your lawn with towels whilst it is raining and the sprinkler is on.

Or maybe we could start by turning the sprinkler off.  Sure the analogy breaks down here because the "sprinkler", i.e. carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels, is itself a side effect of keeping the house running.  So we can't just "turn it off."  But we can take steps to reduce our dependence on that method of running the house.  And, as you said, we need to take steps to mitigate the damage from, and adapt to the changes caused by our increasingly flooded lawn.


Actually there was one more point I meant to add right at the start of my reply, and that's that we could acknowledge that the sprinkler is actually on in the first place.  Denying observable reality hasn't proved to be a particularly successful survival strategy in the past.
 
2018-02-08 05:56:13 AM  

Dave2042: Ketchuponsteak: Its so odd how idiots decided to discuss whether climate change was real or not. That wasn't the debate at all, the debate was whether it was caused by human behaviour or not.

But retards gotta retard.

That wasn't the question.  It has been known we're the cause for decades.
The question was what to do about it, and their answer has been the only consistent bit of their position - nothing.


I'm talking about the discourse. The debate amongst the "I watch Fox News" crowd was whether it was caused by humans or not.

But that obviously to complicated.
 
2018-02-08 05:56:36 AM  

Banned on the Run: Population growth on Earth is just like an infection on a host.

The infection finds an advantage and proliferates until it overwhelms the host (aka, no longer has an energy/food source.)

Until we become symbiotic, we are doomed


I remember reading a sci-fi short story where the sun is/was a sentient being and decided the pestilence covering the third rock out in its orbit needed to be cleansed.  Turns out in the story it had happened in the past with Mercury and Venus.
 
2018-02-08 05:58:20 AM  

indifference_engine: Ketchuponsteak: Its so odd how idiots decided to discuss whether climate change was real or not. That wasn't the debate at all, the debate was whether it was caused by human behaviour or not.

But retards gotta retard.

Why not both?  People will, with a straight face, say "there's been no warming for 20 years" and then immediately afterwards say "but the polar caps on Mars are melting so it can't be humans causing it!"  To which the responses are "yes there has" and "Milankovitch cycles."  And even if the sun was putting out more energy (which it isn't) that disproves nothing.  It's entirely possible for one result to have more than one cause.  The lawn is wet, but it's raining, so therefore the sprinkler isn't on?


Because if humans have a part to do with it, then we can do something about it. Which is complicated, and Communism.
 
2018-02-08 06:04:28 AM  

dready zim: kayanlau: See, there's a "Goldilocks Zone" where there's just the right amount of warmth for most life to survive and actually be comfortable. And here we are seeing ourselves edging towards the other end of uncomfortableness.

We are moving the planet?

Or could it be you do not understand the meaning of 'goldilocks zone'?


I assume you're just being pedantic, but if you haven't already you should read about "radiative balance" and the effect of increased atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation.  You might even have a look at the current emission wavelengths of the surface of the earth along with the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere and compare that to the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.
 
2018-02-08 06:06:10 AM  
Keep on expanding those carbon footprints by the millions. Who cares about the future when there are votes to be bought?
 
2018-02-08 06:06:55 AM  
 
2018-02-08 06:15:18 AM  

Nadie_AZ: I think this is the Russian position on climate change. It's man made and they want it as it opens up vast amounts of resources in Siberia, as well as the fabled northwest passage for trade. So I'm not surprised.


It'll also open up all that methane under the permafrost, which will only make things warmer.
 
2018-02-08 06:20:02 AM  

Catlenfell: He's a fundie. He probably thinks that he'll get raptured before anything really bad happens.


I wish god would hurry up and rapture him then.
 
2018-02-08 06:52:13 AM  
Right now, I totally agree because I'm freezing various bits off.

However, in about 6 month I could go for some global cooling
 
2018-02-08 06:54:49 AM  
 
2018-02-08 07:01:13 AM  

KarmicDisaster: If you like living in a desert wasteland with temps in the hundreds, sure.


What about the other parts of the world... that's underwater?  One day we must choose: Do you want to live in a Mad Max region of the future world, or would you rather move to a Waterworld region?
 
2018-02-08 07:04:21 AM  

Catlenfell: He's a fundie. He probably thinks that he'll get raptured before anything really bad happens.


I always get a giggle out of the pre-wrath rapture types.. because I've read through Revelations and nowhere in that book, does it say you'll be magically taken up before the shiat hits the fan.. UNLESS you're one of the 44,000 or so of a very specific lineage.

Basically, if you don't have a certain genetic sequence, then you'll have to slog through the shiat, just like everyone else. The difference being, YHWH will be there to help you, and help you help others.. though the world will be an utter, living hell of our own making.
 
2018-02-08 07:04:56 AM  

indifference_engine: dready zim: kayanlau: See, there's a "Goldilocks Zone" where there's just the right amount of warmth for most life to survive and actually be comfortable. And here we are seeing ourselves edging towards the other end of uncomfortableness.

We are moving the planet?

Or could it be you do not understand the meaning of 'goldilocks zone'?

I assume you're just being pedantic, but if you haven't already you should read about "radiative balance" and the effect of increased atmospheric absorption of outgoing radiation.  You might even have a look at the current emission wavelengths of the surface of the earth along with the absorption spectrum of the atmosphere and compare that to the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.


Words have meanings. 'Goldilocks zone' relates to the ability for a planet to have liquid water, it is nothing to do with humans being comfortable.

I am fairly sure that any amount of global warming will not affect that.

A serious ice age on the other hand would be a different matter. That might make it impossible for liquid water to be present on the surface, it has happened before. Google 'snowball earth'.

The only way we would be moving out of the goldilocks zone is if we were getting colder.

If you mean a different thing, use different words...
 
2018-02-08 07:05:45 AM  

jso2897: dready zim:
[img.fark.net image 367x264]


Point out the statement I have made in this thread which is inaccurate or incorrect.
 
2018-02-08 07:06:10 AM  
Don't know why people think having 2 gigantic patches of land on this planet forever frozen is a good thing.
Soon people will be able to settle on the poles.The new world!
 
2018-02-08 07:23:57 AM  
All hail our lizard overlords!
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-08 07:40:36 AM  
So could we say that the modern Republican coalition is northern midwest conservatives  whos land will become more valuable as the climate warms fleecing southern conservatives whose land will be destroyed?
 
2018-02-08 07:45:37 AM  

doubled99: Don't know why people think having 2 gigantic patches of land on this planet forever frozen is a good thing.
Soon people will be able to settle on the poles.The new world!


I've been thinking about becoming a land investor at the poles for a decade now.
 
2018-02-08 07:52:37 AM  

dready zim: jso2897: dready zim:
[img.fark.net image 367x264]

Point out the statement I have made in this thread which is inaccurate or incorrect.


Nothing you have said even rises to the level of being wrong - it's just bullshiat.
For an "argument" you have made to be "wrong" you would first have to make some sort of coherent argument of some point or another.
Just snarking at science is not an argument.
 
2018-02-08 08:02:35 AM  
Now, one needs to keep an open mind.
IF, and I do mean IF, there is somebody who actually thinks that disrupting the climate systems of our planet will provide a net benefit to humanity and our civilizations - I want to hear that argument.
I want to hear your thesis, you hypothesis, see what evidence you think you have to support your contention, and examine your conclusions.
My mind is wide open, waiting to receive all the brilliant reasoning you have to offer me.
Certainly, you will be able to demonstrate how everything that mankind has ever learned about what happens when you disrupt naturally balanced system has become magically inoperative!
I can't wait.
 
2018-02-08 08:03:47 AM  
Relevant?

Nathan Thurm
 
2018-02-08 08:08:09 AM  
But , of course, nobody REALLY thinks that. It's just used as snarky innuendo to attack the truth when the truth is spoken. The only purpose being to rationalize ignoring a real problem.
It's intellectual laziness - Americas's cardinal sin.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report