From the No [bleep], Sherlock Files: “On Climate Change, Pruitt Contradicts EPA’s Own Website”

warrsupwiththat? ^ | March 9, 2017 | Guest post by David Middleton

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Guest post by David Middleton

EPA chief Scott Pruitt, speaking on CNBC Thursday morning, made one of his strongest statements yet rejecting the science of human-caused climate change.

“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 on the program “Squawk Box.”

“But we don’t know that yet,” he continued. “We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

Pruitt’s statements fly in the face of the international scientific consensus on climate change — which has concluded that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” They also contradict the very website of the agency that Pruitt heads.

The EPA’s “Climate Change” website states the following:

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.

Pruitt spoke with CNBC even as there is growing anticipation that the Trump administration will soon move to begin a rollback of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, an EPA policy capping emissions from electricity generating stations, such as coal-fired power plants.

[…]

The Washington Post

“On Climate Change, Pruitt Contradicts EPA’s Own Website”… No schist, Sherlock.

Mr. Pruitt has been on the job for about three weeks.  To my knowledge, he is the only Trump appointee in the EPA so far.  Why is Chris Mooney shocked that Mr. Pruitt hasn’t had time to revise every bit of nonsense on EPA websites?  He’s the EPA Administrator.  He has a job to do, running the EPA.  Erasing 8 years of propaganda from EPA websites is probably not at the top of his “to do” list. But, thanks to English major and former AGU board member, Chris Mooney, Mr. Pruitt knows which bit of propaganda the IT folks should tackle first.

“Last updated on December 27, 2016 https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change

Why would The Washington Post even think this is a newsworthy item?  If I didn’t think The Washington Post was a reputable newspaper, I would call this “fake news.”  As usual, any and all, sarcasm was purely intentional.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[rfp1234]

Very gneiss.

[April Lexington]

Good grief! It’s scheiss, dude!,, Not Schist!,,,

[April Lexington]

Like in “Kein Scheiss, Sherlock...

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Re the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.

Well, to this Wash. Post reader since the mid-60’s, the WP has been a “Dark Ages” to the truth since then and it is getting “darker” if that is possible.

A “Black Hole” has nothing on the Wash. Compost or the NY Slimes. They swallow lies like a pig swallows swill, and love it.

[publius911]

Pruitt’s statements fly in the face of the international scientific consensus on climate change — which has concluded that it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” They also contradict the very website of the agency that Pruitt heads.

Try this experiment : Do a "FIND" search of the entire PDF document for the word "consensus..." Tell us what you find.

[FreedomPoster]

Further, if there is a consensus involved, we aren’t talking about Science. Science is repeatable objective Truth about the natural world, and the opinions of a group of humans don’t enter into it. There was a consensus that Galileo was wrong. Science said otherwise.

The same crowd that screams about Big Oil influencing this or that researcher, refuses to see that Big Government has a huge influence on what so-called “Scientists” say. When your next grant, your career, your livelihood, your mortgage payment depends on reciting the party line on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, you tow the party line. This creates a consensus saying what those doling out the money want said, plain and simple. That this has been going on for a long time is obvious to anyone who has delved into the matter at all. Judith Curry in particular has pointed this out from the inside. The ultimate result of this government influence is pure Lysenkoism. It is not Science.

Changing the topic slightly, Scott Adams, who pens Dilbert, has an interesting and shall we say subversive take on this:

How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-skeptics-that-climate-change-is-a

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Now that was outstanding!

Thanks for the link.