EPA chief contradicts EPA science

The recently appointed (by Donald trump) chief of the US Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with majority scientific consensus on CO2 links to warming.

RNZ: US environment chief doubts CO2’s role in global warming

The EPA’s website notes that carbon dioxide is the “primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change”.

Data released in January by NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the planet’s rising temperature has been “driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions in the atmosphere”.

The two US agencies added that the earth’s 2016 temperatures were the warmest ever.

But:

Scott Pruitt told CNBC that measuring human impact on the climate was “very challenging” and there was “tremendous disagreement” about the issue.

Mr Pruitt, chief of the EPA, instead insisted that officials needed “to continue the debate” on the issue.

His remarks contradict his own agency’s findings on greenhouse gas emissions.

Isn’t that why he was chosen by Trump to head the EPA?

Mr Pruitt, 48, who was sworn in last month, is considered one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial appointments due to his ties to the fossil fuel industry.

The former Oklahoma attorney general also spent years legally challenging the reach of the organisation he now heads.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Mr Pruitt did say he believed humans had contributed to climate change, though he was not sure how much.

Perhaps he should learn something about what his agency does.

Mr Trump tweeted in 2012 that global warming was a “hoax”, but he said last November “I think there is some connectivity” between humans and the changing climate.

Trump is well known for promoting hoaxes and conspiracies. He is also well known for changing his tune.

Leave a comment

22 Comments

  1. David

     /  March 10, 2017

    “Perhaps he should learn something about what his agency does.”

    He knows very well what the agency does. He simply doesn’t believe it should be doing it.

    Reply
    • Doing what? Science?

      Reply
      • David

         /  March 10, 2017

        The EPA is a regulator, it doesn’t do ‘science’. Pruitt is there to shut it down.

        “For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn,” the release quoted Trump as saying. He said Pruitt “will reverse this trend and restore the EPA’s essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe.” Trump added, “My administration “strongly believes in environmental protection, and Scott Pruitt will be a powerful advocate for that mission while promoting jobs, safety and opportunity.”

        You can see Myron Ebell outline the general approach in this briefing;

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 10, 2017

          Exactly. The EPA does not do climate science. It does regulation.

          Reply
  2. Corky

     /  March 10, 2017

    Big year for this scam to be exposed. Embolden scientists will be protesting against vested interests fudging climate change results. All thanks to President Trumpy.

    The lie about censuses by scientist regarding climate change is about to be exposed.

    Much utu will be delivered to scare merchants and blatant liars.

    Reply
    • The US will be internationally ridiculed.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  March 10, 2017

        How come?

        Reply
      • David

         /  March 10, 2017

        “The US will be internationally ridiculed.”

        Do you think this is something that will bother Trump? Or his supporters?

        Reply
      • PDB

         /  March 10, 2017

        Ridiculed for saying the debate needs to be continued??

        Science is never ‘settled’, consensus is not science.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 10, 2017

        Of course. But ridicule has nothing to do with science. It is employed by those who have no science to bring to the table.

        Reply
    • That should be consensus, eh Corky?

      Reply
    • PDB

       /  March 10, 2017

      Corky’s downticks suddenly jumped to 16! Strange………

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 10, 2017

        The Empire Strikes Back – in the only way it knows how. Pathetic.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  March 10, 2017

          It jumped suddenly from about 4 to 16…….well out of line to the number of downticks/upticks per-comment throughout the rest of the thread.

          Reply
  3. David

     /  March 10, 2017

    CO2 is a plant food and now the figures used at the Paris climate agreement seem to have been manipulated. The whole bloody thing seems to be an expensive scam and none of the dire predictions have come even close to be proven in fact.
    We should get on with looking after our environment not this bloody nonsense.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  March 10, 2017

      Worth mentioning again – The late Augie Auer: “Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 °C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 °C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper.”

      Reply
  4. Pete still stuck in liberal land > forever I think. The global warming industry is obviously scientifically meaninglesss, and like sociulaism crashing. . Most of the believers are liberals without any Scientific ability at all . ..Like Christine Figueres onf UN .

    Reply
  5. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  March 10, 2017

    At this website you can access 91 peer-reviewed research papers from 2016 and 2017 that illustrate any recent climate warming isn’t global, unprecedented or remarkable.
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/09/30-new-2017-scientific-papers-crush-the-hockey-stick-graph-and-global-scale-warming-claims/#comments

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s