Let The Dismantling Begin: Climate-Change Denier Scott Pruitt Trump’s Pick For New EPA Chief

[craig]

" I was among friends one day and one guy accused me of being a leftist because I drive a Leaf. I absolutely asked him to explain, and he said I am a believer in climate change because I drive a BEV. That left me stunned, and the only thing I said was "cheers". How do you argue with stupid people?"

Agreed. While I do not believe that "climate change" is influenced in any meaningful way by the activities of mankind, I also do not believe that the planet was put here to be raped by us. In my opinion, earth's resources are here to be used in a responsible, renewable way, not burned for immediate, inexpensive (in monetary terms) gain.
I have owned a hybrid, and am now on my second electric car.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I'm very interested to see how this plays out.

Yea. Me too. We are off the charts in a bunch of ways.

Wow all those golf outings in air force one had more of an impact than we realized.

Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

like any speculative thread, reality will be greatly tempered. trump may aim for the fences but will likely be lucky to hit some singles but all indications point to him pulling every trick out of the bag to get what he wants for him and his cronies.

I am thinking I should be glad I jumped on my LEAF while the jumping was good...

 

[craig]

Then again, there is always the possibility that Trump, unlike many of his leftist critics, actually loves America and wants what is best for his country. Radical thought, eh?
For too many years, we have had presidents who were more than willing to sacrifice the good of America for what they saw as the good of the world. No. The duty of the president of America is to look after the interests of the American people, just as the duty of the leaders of Russia, Germany, wherever, is to look after the welfare of their own people first.
As for Donald's cabinet picks: Donald attributes his success in the business arena to hiring the best people he can find to do the job. It worked for him in the private sector, and he is obviously repeating this successful tactic. Whether you like his choices or not, they are people of high intelligence and of proven worth: they get results. Maybe choosing by ability is better than choosing by political ideology?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Then again, there is always the possibility that Trump, unlike many of his leftist critics, actually loves America and wants what is best for his country. Radical thought, eh?
For too many years, we have had presidents who were more than willing to sacrifice the good of America for what they saw as the good of the world. No. The duty of the president of America is to look after the interests of the American people, just as the duty of the leaders of Russia, Germany, wherever, is to look after the welfare of their own people first.
As for Donald's cabinet picks: Donald attributes his success in the business arena to hiring the best people he can find to do the job. It worked for him in the private sector, and he is obviously repeating this successful tactic. Whether you like his choices or not, they are people of high intelligence and of proven worth: they get results. Maybe choosing by ability is better than choosing by political ideology?

That's crazy talk

 

[WetEV]

I'm very interested to see how this plays out.

Yea. Me too. We are off the charts in a bunch of ways.

Wow all those golf outings in air force one had more of an impact than we realized.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Ah yes, focus on the trivial, and ignore the real. Works for politics. Sometimes.

You own the problem now. It is yours.


Deny the problem exists, and if reality bites, then what?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Then again, there is always the possibility that Trump, unlike many of his leftist critics, actually loves America and wants what is best for his country. Radical thought, eh?
For too many years, we have had presidents who were more than willing to sacrifice the good of America for what they saw as the good of the world. No. The duty of the president of America is to look after the interests of the American people, just as the duty of the leaders of Russia, Germany, wherever, is to look after the welfare of their own people first.
As for Donald's cabinet picks: Donald attributes his success in the business arena to hiring the best people he can find to do the job. It worked for him in the private sector, and he is obviously repeating this successful tactic. Whether you like his choices or not, they are people of high intelligence and of proven worth: they get results. Maybe choosing by ability is better than choosing by political ideology?

like duh!

but what if trump's ideology for the "good of the country" is putting more power into corporations by allowing unfettered access to natural resources like gas, oil and coal to pump up the treasury at the cost of sacrificing the environment because he has deluded himself into thinking we are not the cause of global warming?

what if we are simply going thru the EXACT same cycle we have for the past 30+ years? Where republicans mortgage the future to provide a short lived relief here and now for the less fortunate while reaping billions for themselves? its been the exact same cycle since Reagan and by all initial indications, trump will do the exact same.

there is no free lunch here so something has to make a sacrifice. the republicans choose to preserve commerce, big business and wall street while sacrificing our environment and future economy. it is really that simple...

 

[finman100]

FT2016

 

[Stoaty]

Agreed. While I do not believe that "climate change" is influenced in any meaningful way by the activities of mankind, I also do not believe that the planet was put here to be raped by us.

This is exactly the kind of anti-science stance (which Trump has as well) which worries me so much about Trump. In case you aren't aware, climate change denial is a uniquely American phenomenon. The science has been worked on for decades, and the conclusion that humans are causing global warming is about as solid as the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer. All conspiracy theories aside.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Agreed. While I do not believe that "climate change" is influenced in any meaningful way by the activities of mankind, I also do not believe that the planet was put here to be raped by us.

This is exactly the kind of anti-science stance (which Trump has as well) which worries me so much about Trump. In case you aren't aware, climate change denial is a uniquely American phenomenon. The science has been worked on for decades, and the conclusion that humans are causing global warming is about as solid as the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer. All conspiracy theories aside.

Yet the people screaming the loudest are the worst offenders, up and down the line. If you want a good laugh, offer a liberal box wine or a glass of water from tap. Mass transit is just a solution for getting the other cars off the road so they don't have to deal with traffic. Biggest houses, biggest suvs, latest gadgets, jetting around the world on vacations... I wish they would all just STFU.

 

[WetEV]

Yet the people screaming the loudest are the worst offenders, up and down the line. If you want a good laugh, offer a liberal box wine or a glass of water from tap. Mass transit is just a solution for getting the other cars off the road so they don't have to deal with traffic. Biggest houses, biggest suvs, latest gadgets, jetting around the world on vacations... I wish they would all just STFU.

Err, I drink water from the tap. I've never yet turned down box wine. I've an average size house, rather less than I could "afford to own". I've never owned an SUV.

Oh, and I'm usually lower with energy use, according to the utility company, than my "most efficient neighbors".

So why do you not want to listen?

I'll hear you out.

 

[Stoaty]

Yet the people screaming the loudest are the worst offenders, up and down the line. If you want a good laugh, offer a liberal box wine or a glass of water from tap. Mass transit is just a solution for getting the other cars off the road so they don't have to deal with traffic. Biggest houses, biggest suvs, latest gadgets, jetting around the world on vacations... I wish they would all just STFU.

I happen to be a liberal. I live in a small Condo, drink (filtered) tap water and green tea. I don't drink wine, but will have an occasional beer. I fly twice a year and have never flown outside the continental U.S. My Leaf is 5.5 years old; I have a 15 year old Camry I use for the occasional long trip. I could very easily afford a Tesla but choose not to because I don't need a car that big or expensive. It seems to me you are talking about a small subset of liberals who don't practice what they preach; however, the science is not dependent on whether or not Leonardo Dicaprio owns a huge yacht (which I agree is quite hypocritical).

 

[craig]

Agreed. While I do not believe that "climate change" is influenced in any meaningful way by the activities of mankind, I also do not believe that the planet was put here to be raped by us.

This is exactly the kind of anti-science stance (which Trump has as well) which worries me so much about Trump. In case you aren't aware, climate change denial is a uniquely American phenomenon. The science has been worked on for decades, and the conclusion that humans are causing global warming is about as solid as the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer. All conspiracy theories aside.

Not really all that solid. The only "consensus" about the validity of 'climate change' is in the leftist media, and if you really believe that America is the only country holding out against the "truth" of man-caused climate change, you obviously don't talk to actual citizens of other countries, and are simply taking the leftist media as being factual and unbiased in its reports of their stance.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

This thread is actually one of the most civil discussions I've read on this subject. Well done, folks. (No sarcasm, I swear I mean this 100%).

On the political spectrum, I cannot call myself "left", "right" or "central". It really depends on the question being asked. I believe that all human beings (read: ALL HUMANS, that's all nations, all races, all ages, from conception to natural death) have certain unalienable rights. Endowed by their Creator (yes, I believe and trust in God). And yes, I borrowed those lines from the Declaration of Independence, and yes I believe them. I also believe that we have the responsibility to preserve the earth and its resources, using them responsibly. Somehow those two values seem at odds in our political system. But I digress. My point is that these labels don't help use discuss the issue at hand. They only detract.

It seems to me that Mr. Trump is stocking these agencies with those who have values similar to his own. He is delivering the change that he promised. And it is not subtle. In my opinion, some are long overdue, and some will set us back decades.

The specific EPA appointment falls in the latter case. It certainly aligns with Mr. Trump's beliefs to reduce or eliminate the environmental regulations imposed by the EPA. And if we are honest with ourselves, those regulations have caused the loss of many American jobs. Because other nations, like Mexico and China, are much less stringent, making manufacturing much more attractive. Admitting that pollution is a global problem - not just a local one - would mean admitting that we are hypocrits. To be honest and fair, we would restrict trade with those who don't follow the same standards. And that would create a much more even competition between the US and foreign markets.

A similar argument can be made with respect to labor. We have minimum wage standards. We have standards for working conditions. Benefits. Etc. Yet we freely trade with other nations who don't enforce similar standards.

So to balance things properly, we either get rid of our environmental standards or restrict trade with others who don't follow them. We either get rid of our labor unions and reduce worker benefits, or restrict trade with others. In both of these questions, Mr. Trump seems to lean toward the former rather than the latter. I would argue we should be looking at our trade partners to up their game, not backtrack on those gains made in our nation.

 

[craig]

"So to balance things properly, we either get rid of our environmental standards or restrict trade with others who don't follow them. We either get rid of our labor unions and reduce worker benefits, or restrict trade with others. In both of these questions, Mr. Trump seems to lean toward the former rather than the latter. I would argue we should be looking at our trade partners to up their game, not backtrack on those gains made in our nation."

So, why didn't YOU run? No sarcasm here, either: you make a lot of sense.
I have long been an advocate of a genuinely level playing field in our trade with other nations, and have never, if I had a choice, patronized nations who egregiously violate human rights.
Unfortunately, we have become so used to paying dirt cheap prices for things like shoes or electronics that we no longer make enough of these items here, and are forced to send dollars to non-compliant nations.
As a mild example of "buying American", I would have loved to buy an American BEV, but none are to be had in Utah: the few that are American made (and owned) are compliance vehicles restricted to a few states. Pity. I am, otoh, very happy with my American made Nissan Leaf.
Yes, I am rambling.

 

[Stoaty]

Not really all that solid. The only "consensus" about the validity of 'climate change' is in the leftist media...

No, the consensus is among climate scientists.

 

[wwhitney]

Not really all that solid. The only "consensus" about the validity of 'climate change' is in the leftist media

You are denying the truth. Namely:

1) The earth's surface is getting warmer.
2) Satellite data shows that less of the heat emitted by the earth's surface is escaping into space.
3) Humanity is emitting CO2, causing the atmospheric concentration to rise.
4) CO2 increases the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat.
5) No other changes in the atmosphere or the solar input that could explain the additional heat trapping have been observed.

Each of the above points is supported by several decades of data and observations (point 4 is shown in lab experiments).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[craig]

Not really all that solid. The only "consensus" about the validity of 'climate change' is in the leftist media...

No, the consensus is among climate scientists.

First off, "consensus" doesn't make something true if it is not. At one time, for example, it was the consensus of mankind that the earth was flat.
Second, the "consensus" myth originated with a Midwestern undergrads paper, in which he cherry picked seventeen scientists and mailed them questionnaires. Of that seventeen, sixteen agreed with the conclusions he wanted them to agree with. The resulting "97%" myth was picked up by the leftist media and touted as fact so many times that many folk believe it to be true, when in fact it is not.

 

[Stoaty]

First off, "consensus" doesn't make something true if it is not. At one time, for example, it was the consensus of mankind that the earth was flat. Second, the "consensus" myth originated with a Midwestern undergrads paper, in which he cherry picked seventeen scientists and mailed them questionnaires. Of that seventeen, sixteen agreed with the conclusions he wanted them to agree with. The resulting "97%" myth was picked up by the leftist media and touted as fact so many times that many folk believe it to be true, when in fact it is not.

The scientific consensus is our best handle on the truth, imperfect as it may be. Here is the evidence for the international scientific consensus:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

 

[craig]

Not really all that solid. The only "consensus" about the validity of 'climate change' is in the leftist media

You are denying the truth. Namely:

1) The earth's surface is getting warmer.
2) Satellite data shows that less of the heat emitted by the earth's surface is escaping into space.
3) Humanity is emitting CO2, causing the atmospheric concentration to rise.
4) CO2 increases the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat.
5) No other changes in the atmosphere or the solar input that could explain the additional heat trapping have been observed.

Each of the above points is supported by several decades of data and observations (point 4 is shown in lab experiments).

Cheers, Wayne

1. Actually, for the last ten years, the earth's surface has been in a cooling trend. This is why the left has changed the name of this media-manufactured crisis from "global warming" to "climate change".
2. I don't know about that: you may be right.
3. Humanity has been breathing out for eons, as has every other living creature.
4. I will take your word for that.
5. The earth is a 'living' thing, and goes through cycles in tectonic activity, weather activity, etc. These changes have been dated back hundreds of centuries, and cannot be exclusively blamed on mankind. The Little Ice Age, the Medieval warming Period, etc, are well documented changes in our climate, none of which can be linked to human activity as a causative factor.
A single major volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses in the air than all of mankinds activities for the last three hundred years. I can think of three major eruptions just in my life time. Will giving up my second car prevent another Mt St. Helens or Pinatubo? I don't think so.
I will readily agree that we are going through a period of climate change: I just don't buy the leftist line that we are the cause of it. This is a manufactured lie being pushed with the ultimate goal an elitist group gaining control over the mass of mankind.