EPA Head Scott Pruitt Riles Global-warming Alarmists
Mar 10, 2017 by Warren Mass
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (shown) was on CNBC’s Squawk Box news and talk program March 9, and expressed disagreement with the commonly held opinion that carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to global warming. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said.
Following that statement, a host of diehard adherents of the theory of man-made climate change expressed their outrage.
Pruitt noted that further study was needed to determine the extent of carbon emmissions’ impact on global warming — which seems like a very prudent position to take. It is a key premise of what is commonly called the “scientific method” that once a hypothesis is formed, a number of experiements must be carried out to test its validity. Pruitt’s call for “further study” is nothing more than a plea that opinions and policies regarding “global warming” be based on scientific experimentation — not conjecture.
Despite the assertions made by the global-warming theorists who jumped all over Pruitt for his statement that further study on climate change is needed, there is a strong body of evidence among climate scientists that climate change is not caused by human activity at all, but is a naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon. Even so-called global warming is subject to questioning, since several studies have shown that global warming (no matter what caused it) has paused. In a January 2016 article, we noted that even The Economist, a very influential British journal that is a notable example of an establishment alarmist organ, admitted that there has been a hiatus in global warming. Of course, The Economist still stubbornly clung to the anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (or AGW) thesis and attempted desperately to account for the “puzzling” lack of predicted warming.
As we noted at the time:
“Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist reported in a March 30, 2013 article entitled “A sensitive matter.” “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750,” the article continued. “And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’”
So, not only is the temperature record defying the fright-peddling scenarios of the alarmist computer models, it is also falsifying the claim that man-made CO2 is responsible for causing the (non-existent) global warming “threat.” The troublesome hiatus explains why a number of years ago the alarmists rebranded “global warming” with the newer, preferred “climate change” label.
Considering the body of evidence that global warming has ceased for several years, and even before then may have been attributable to natural cycles in the Earth’s climate (after all, there are thorough records of the Earth going through ice ages and warming periods even during mankind’s recorded history), Pruitt’s statements that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do,” and that further study was needed to determine the extent of carbon emmissions’ impact on global warming seem quite reasonable. However, those who insist that global warming is the most serious threat to the existence of the human race since the Black Death devastated Europe in the 14th century refuse to consider any theories for climate variations other than their own, and will vigorously condemn any and all who disagree with them.
Democrats in Congress were among the first to respond to Pruitt’s statement.
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), co-chair of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, issued a statement shortly after the interview calling Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible.” “Anyone who denies over a century’s worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA. Now more than ever, the Senate needs to stand up to Scott Pruitt and his dangerous views,” said Schatz.
Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, tweeted about Pruitt’s statement: “I think 97 percent of the world’s scientists were surprised to learn this today! I know I was.”
And Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) also directed a tweet at Pruitt: “It’s telling when you’re at odds with @NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], and science generally.”
It was interesting that Harris cited NOAA, since, as we noted in an article in February, Britain’s The Mail had just published a report that the NOAA violated its own rules on scientific integrity when it published a flawed report geared to influence world leaders at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The newspaper cited Dr. John Bates, a retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, as the whistleblower who reported the agency’s false report.
The NOAA report, noted the Mail, claimed that the pause or slowdown in global warming in the period since 1998 — a phenomenon revealed by UN scientists in 2013 — never existed. In fact, reported the scientists, world temperatures had been rising faster than members of the scientific community expected. The NOAA launched its report disputing the findings of the UN scientists with a “public relations fanfare,” noted the Mail, and it was publicized by the world’s media and cited repeatedly by politicians and policymakers.
Furthermore, the assertion made by Carper that 97 percent of the world’s scientists would disagree with Pruitt is contradicted by the many scientists who maintain that the entire global-warming theory is a gross exaggeration. In a 2008 article, we provided numerous examples of scientists who disputed that manmade carbon emissions have created global warming. A key point made in the article was:
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Pubic Works has announced a new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report with statements from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenging man-made global-warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. The report notes: “The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
The article also quoted atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, who said, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
And another credible scientist, geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, who served as staff physicist at MIT, said, “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”
And this is just a tiny sampling of the many scientists who would agree with Pruit more than his detractors, who certainly amount more than the three percent of all environmental scientists that Carper implied.
The New American has published a wealth of material citing scientists who disagree with the AGW propagandists. For more information, read some of the related articles linked below.
Photo: AP Images
Two pieces of excellent news from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that incoming administrator Scott Pruitt is doing the Lord’s work.
Asked his views on the role of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels, in increasing global warming, Mr. Pruitt said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
That phrase, “the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels,” is just a bit of New York Times editorializing, by the way. No serious person thinks that man-made carbon dioxide poses any kind of major climate threat because there’s just no evidence to support that theory. It’s just one of those cherished left-liberal myths that goes next to other fantasy concepts like “equality,” “sustainability,” and “social justice.”
Speaking of which, the second piece of good news is that the Environmental Protection Agency has just lost its head of Environmental Justice.
Probably you didn’t know that the EPA had a head of Environmental Justice, but you should because you’ve been paying his salary since the George H.W. Bush era. His name is Mustafa Ali, and, according to a tearful requiem in Inside Climate, he has resigned in protest at EPA budget cuts, which will see the agency lose 20 percent of its 15,000 staff and $2 billion from its $8 billion.
“Jumped before he was pushed” is the phrase that comes to mind, for it is likely that Ali’s department will be dismantled altogether.
Ali has written a resignation letter to Scott Pruitt saying what a mistake this would be.
But if you go to the EPA’s website and see what the Environmental Justice Department has been doing for the last few years, you may disagree with this assessment.
Check out this page About EJ 2020.
By the end, you’ll have no more idea what the Environmental Justice Department does than you did at the beginning.
Here’s a taste:
Through EJ 2020, EPA will advance our environmental justice efforts to a new level in improving the health and environment of overburdened communities. By 2020, we will:
- Improve on-the-ground results for overburdened communities through reduced impacts and enhanced benefits
- Institutionalize environmental justice integration in EPA decision-making
- Build robust partnerships with states, tribes and local governments
- Strengthen our ability to take action on environmental justice and cumulative impacts
- Better address complex national environmental justice issues.
Our vision of how EPA will make a difference in the environmental and public health landscape over the next five years is detailed on the key results page of the plan.
It is, as I think you’ll agree, pure gibberish. How do you measure this department’s success in advancing the cause of “environmental justice”? Well, of course, you don’t. You can’t because “environmental justice” is a nebulous concept, which can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.
Reading between the lines, though, what you can guess is that it’s basically another race-guilt make-work scheme. It’s based on the (spurious, identity-politics-driven) notion that environmental problems are felt more keenly by people of color because they live in poorer areas more vulnerable to pollution.
Well, George H.W. Bush fell for it, clearly: it was under his administration in 1992 that the department was inaugurated. Not so, thank heavens, Donald Trump.
If you’re in any doubt that this was a department ripe for deep-sixing, listen to the sad words of former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy:
“I am heartbroken that Mustafa feels that his time of productivity in the agency has passed,” McCarthy said in an interview. “He managed the interagency working group on environmental justice,” she said, referring to a conclave of federal agencies that met to discuss common concerns. “So when I say we brought actions and strategies to the table, it wasn’t just EPA, it was throughout the federal government.”
Did any of these people do anything useful with all that taxpayer money they’ve been getting? Ever??