You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
A man who rejects settled science on climate change should not lead the EPA
2016-12-11
[WAPO who else?] THE WEEK started with a hopeful sign for those concerned about climate change: Former vice president Al Gore met with Donald Trump for about 90 minutes on Monday, leading some to believe that the president-elect might be ready to accept facts and evidence. By the end of the week, however, Mr. Trump had selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Pruitt wrote this in National Review in May: "Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged -- in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime."

Dissent, indeed, is not a crime, and acknowledging the uncertainties in climate forecasts is reasonable. But rejecting or playing down the near-unanimous warnings of experts, which are based on decades of substantial and continually accumulating evidence and suggest vast implications for future generations, should disqualify a nominee from leading an expert agency charged with making science-based decisions. Among scientists there is virtually no dissent
Oh yes there is...
from the conclusion that human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, which releases heat-trapping gases that stay in the atmosphere -- is leading to planetary warming, and that the coming changes pose severe risks.

No doubt we would disagree with Mr. Pruitt on any number of issues. He is a leading voice against the Clean Power Plan, President Obama’s centerpiece climate policy. Even before his nomination, the New York Times had uncovered extremely close ties between Mr. Pruitt and the oil and gas industry. He has been tapped to run an agency much of whose work he believes should cease.

We might not oppose Mr. Pruitt’s nomination based on these differences. There are legitimate arguments, based in states’ rights and concerns over overregulation, against the Obama administration’s assertive application of clean water and clean air laws. A president is entitled to advisers, if they are qualified, who reflect his views.
Posted by:Besoeker

#19  More on "climate change"
Posted by: newc   2016-12-11 23:52  

#18  Sorry Glen. The fact that climate changes, and has been for millions of years is what is pretty much settled science.

The idea that mankind is responsible for Climate Change is what is most definately *not* settled.

The climate people are taking the settled science of climate change and attempting to apply it to the idea that it's mankind caused.

Kind of like the assertion that if you are against people who violate our borders then you are against immigrants. Entirely unrelated issues but they assert that they are the same.

The fact that climate change has been happening long before we climbed out of the trees [to free our hands for other uses...] is never mentioned. And that the data is bludgeoned until it meets their pre-determined conclusions makes their 'studies' irrelevant.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2016-12-11 18:21  

#17  I guess that makes me a "Denier", Glen. I think we have too many cooked data reports, too many bad models, and grant-whores who subsist on "a new Ice Age" "Global Warmening" "Climate Change".

REAL Scienceâ„¢ doesn't try to shut down debate, hide data and mods, argue that the other side is "unethical or immoral" for questioning theory and results
Posted by: Frank G   2016-12-11 16:13  

#16  I believe the concept that human activity increases atmospheric CO2 is settled science. And that increased atmospheric CO2 creates more retained heat is settled science.
What is NOT settled is 'how much increase?' Or what other linked changes occur? Or 'is it good, or bad?'
What is not science is 'can we really stop it?' Or are we even interested in the 'science' of it, or just the politics?
Posted by: Glenmore   2016-12-11 15:54  

#15  Many people die of dihydrogen monoxide every year worldwide. It is an alarming and significant problem that needs to be studied to understand this phenomenon and to try to prevent these needless these deaths.
Posted by: JohnQC   2016-12-11 14:21  

#14  'Settled Science'....? Are they referring to the wisdom of Gaia, Agamemnon's human weather sacrifices, flat earth, capsizing Guam ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-12-11 12:31  

#13  Actually, a man that rejects this bullshit is exactly who we need leading the EPA.
Posted by: DarthVader   2016-12-11 12:18  

#12  And political hacks who have no experience or contract with the military culture should ever be appointed as SecDef, but that hasn't stopped you before.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-12-11 09:07  

#11  Walk down just as far as the corner without a jacket. Then tell me about Global Warming.

Its BS and always was. It used to be Global Cooling 20 years ago. That was BS too.
What is is REALLY about is CONTROL. And Manipulation.
People are not stupid....like I say..walk down to the Corner without your jacket.
Posted by: Glinemble Omoluling5707   2016-12-11 08:20  

#10  20-30 years ago, a Scientific American article showed (I think) 11,000-year cycles of warming/cooling, based on orbital cycles. The author supposed global warming started 8,000 years ago, with agriculture and - yes, you knew it! - cow ... ummm... methane.

But, the author observed without this man-made (and domesticated animal) climate change, we would now be smack in the middle of an ice age.

Thank heaven for cows! And they make beef.
Posted by: Bobby   2016-12-11 08:18  

#9  IMO, it would make perfect sense if you had a joint, Elmavish Panda1401.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-12-11 08:03  

#8  "We won"
Posted by: Frank G   2016-12-11 08:01  

#7  Does anyone understand what Crinegum Ulaigum2776 said? I've tried to parse it and come up blank.
Posted by: Elmavish Panda1401   2016-12-11 07:50  

#6  Some are convinced we buggered the litmus test (and law) regarding citizenship for the highest office in the land. I don't see the harm in a Climate Change denier. To borrow a boring phrase, 'Fair and balanced.'
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-12-11 07:17  

#5  Remember hole in ozone layer? How about polywater?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-12-11 06:07  

#4  40 years ago, you idiots believed in global cooling. Remember that?

So what if the climate changes? What are you going to do? Give al gore more money or buy a space heater?

You people fall for anything and liberals lie about everything.
Posted by: newc   2016-12-11 03:39  

#3  If the [settled] science of polling cannot predict a Trump win over Hillary one day in advance, how can meteorological science forecast years in advance?
The term "settled science" is a PC dogmatic catch phrase equivalent to "the world is flat".
Darwinism slow evolution was "settled science" until the big bang theory evolved to replace it.
"Global warming" evolved into "climate change".
One day "settled climate change" will evolve into duh, yeah the climate does change! But the climate change will be as unpredictable as a presidential election.
Posted by: Ulash Sneting2691   2016-12-11 02:47  

#2  Settled science is an oxymoron.
Posted by: phil_b   2016-12-11 01:52  

#1  What were you clowns calling this phenomenon eight years ago?
Posted by: Raj   2016-12-11 01:45  

00:00