E.P.A.'s Scott Pruitt wants the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement

So being in this climate deal is apparently "bad for America" according to Scott Pruitt, no surprise since Pruitt doesn't give a shit about the environment, so it makes sense that he's in charge of the E.P.A.

Full Story Here.

I am inclined to agree with him, but only because it is so shameful for the US gov't to be involved with anything that would hopefully improve the overall health of the environment. Who the hell are we are to have anything to say? We'd probably do more harm than good being involved.

With our jerkoff president with his jerkoff cabinet and jerkoff Scott Pruitt...

...STAY OUT OF PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT, Pruitt!

Climate change is just a giant hoax to improve air and water quality. Don't fall for it, folks

There is nothing any republican/conservative can say to defend this crap. They are absolutely wrong when it comes to climate, and it isn't even debatable.

Turning science into politics, ugh. The rest of the world laughs at us on this issue.

Scott Pruitt is an oil man. This automatically makes him a TERRIBLE human being. Expect terrible, immoral actions from terrible, immoral people.

Well part of signing the accord, I attended a presentation by Dr. Susanne Droege, is that nations are required to commit for, I believe, four or five years.

Good, considering it's not real there is no reason for the United States to waste it's time or resources on it.

I'm sure Al Gore is very upset that his documentary wasn't able to con the entire nation.

To con a nation into having cleaner air and water. That Al Gore is rather dastardly, lemme tell ya

The same people claiming climate change isn't real are the same individuals who tried to cover up the health risks with smoking tobacco, like the Heartland Institute. Climate change is a proven scientific fact and has been since the 1970's.

@perfect_blue: Nah man, its all a hoax. Smoking doesn't have any danger to it. The science community is just trying to push their agenda and hurt the free market

So we try to improve air and water quality for no reason at all? Aww damn it.

@horgen: Yup what a bunch of fools we are. Nothing says freedom like muck and smog

No it's not, there is not one scientific study done that backs up the Paris Climate Agreement.

No, just as he said, pollution.

@Jaysonguy: Yes it is

No it's not. It's called weather patterns. They change. I don't know how many times the Polar Ice Caps should have melted completely by now.

Global Warming is this years Y2K.

Why are the two most active conservative posters both either satire or troll accounts lol.

Sad.

go back to school, hopefully a STEM program and learn something. Your business/economic/liberal arts qualifications don't count, and repeating talking points from retards doesn't really make you any smarter either.

@zaryia: Trump supporters and trolls are interchangeable based on my observations and experiences.

Anything you disagree with you call trolling.

You guys are disagreeing with facts though

Which facts?

Fake news

I can't believe we're still having the debate about whether it's "real" or not... wasting time trying to convince idiots who don't want to believe facts because it doesn't suit their monetary interests. Unbelievable.

Humans are warming the planet at an alarming rate. It is NOT a natural variation. The longer we keep spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, the worse is going to get.

Imagine what our children and grandchildren will think of us for creating this huge problem for them when we knew about it and chose to ignore it. It makes me sick and ashamed to think about it.

We have no backup planet to go to. We have one shot at this.

How about this: https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

or this https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

or this https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

or the EPA which Scott Pruitt runs: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change

or all of these: http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajcc/

I'd post more but there are currently over 100,000 peer reviewed scientific articles drawing a conclusion that humans are the primary cause for global climate change. Humans are the primary cause of climate change is now fact.

Owned.

Sounds like desperate scientists wanting funding. Fake news.

Considering environmental scientists earn a median income of $49,849 I would say most of them aren't in it for the money. If you were in it for the money you would be a climate change denier and work for the petroleum and gas industries who pay on average almost double than the industry average.

You asked for facts, so you were provided with links with studies/research and your response is ... 'Desperate scientists wanting funding. Fake news'. Ummm???

It's hard take your position on this issue seriously when your rebuttal is incredibly lazy. I was willing to listen to your reasoning as to why you don't believe it's real, but I have no interest in doing so if you're too lazy to present your own arguments, especially when you expect it from the opposite side.

You posted links to quack science and government sponsored organizations.

I didn't post anything. Someone else posted those in response to you. Again, stop being lazy about this. If you actually want to have a proper discussion, then do so.

@fishpockets: The sources are biased and shit. Sorry you I won't debate you in your safe space.

Even the EPA source?

Isn't that more or less Pruitt's website?...

It would be great if climate change skeptics could just accept climate change, instead arguing against environmentalism from an economic perspective. At least that way the conversation could freakin' move forward for once. Stop fighting a losing battle, and move on to an issue where your arguments actually carry some merit.

Climate change is happening, the rate the climate is changing is at an alarmingly high rate. And there is plenty of evidence to support that things man puts into the atmosphere contributes.

@mrbojangles25: Maybe he needs more time to redo the site.

OK, again, don't be lazy. If you think they're bad then post your counter argument with evidence as to why it's not a real issue.

Right now you've done pretty much nothing to add weight to your argument, you're just being obnoxious.

If I had coal I would want nobody even mother nature telling me how I deplete my coal.