Ad Attacks Trump’s EPA Pick for Encouraging Scientific Debate

By Michael Bastasch Published on January 16, 2017

Environmentalists have put out a new ad campaign attacking President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for “encouraging debate” among scientists about the “degree and extent” of global warming.

“He believes debate should be encouraged about the truth of climate science,” says a recent ad attacking Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt funded by the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

The ad is referring to a March 2016 National Review article Pruitt co-authored with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, arguing against an effort by Democratic states attorneys general investigating Exxon and right-wing think tanks and scientists accused of trying to cover up global warming science.

“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,” Pruitt and Strange wrote.

“It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime,” the two AGs wrote.

WATCH:

 

Apparently, encouraging scientific debate is not something environmentalists want when it comes to climate science.

EDF, an environmental group, goes on to claim “applying Pruitt’s radical views of federalism to the EPA would gut the agency’s long-standing bipartisan mandate to ensure basic protections for clean air and clean water nationwide.”

EDF says they’ve never opposed a candidate for EPA, but says Pruitt is “so dangerous” they felt compelled to publicly oppose him.

EDF isn’t alone in this effort. Clean Air Moms Action recently launched a massive ad campaign opposed Pruitt’s nomination to head EPA, specifically focusing on his opposition to the agency’s $10 billion mercury regulation.

The Senate will hold Pruitt’s confirmation hearing Wednesday, and he’s expected to get a positive vote from the Committee on Environment and Public Works — but not without resistance from Democrats.

Democrats have labeled Pruitt a “climate denier” who will do the bidding of “Big Oil,” and some are plotting to, at the very least, make a public spectacle out of his confirmation hearings.

“The EPA is in charge of clean air for America. We must not have a professional climate denier in charge. This is an emergency,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz recently tweeted.

 

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • jayceej

    History shows that scientists are frequently wrong, even when they are all agreed. On climate change, they are not agreed on extent, effect, or causes. Instead of running scared of even discussion, we should want to hear all sides. He’s not suggesting discussion among scientists and big business, or politicians. He is talking about scientists here.

    • Nunyadambizness

      Agreed. As a former Chemistry major, I can state that Scientific Method means that consensus is immaterial. It’s the theory and the testing of that theory by subsequent scientists to prove the theory is what counts. This “consensus” of scientists is not scientific, it’s POLITICAL. When Algore stated “The science is settled!” I knew that this was no longer science, it was a political scheme, nothing more–or, maybe, a new religion. AGW/Climate change is nothing if not a religion unto itself…

  • llew jones

    My observation of the political scene in Australia is that politicians who have come from a legal background invariably accept the hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and will lead to a catastrophic future for all life on the planet. My guess is that it is the lawyer’s unthinking acceptance of “expert opinion” that leads them to this unscientific proposition. In your country the lawyer Obama is an example of that same unthinking attitude.

    The science from back to Arrhenius (about 1912) and to the present day is still largely ignorant of exactly how Earth’s climate system works. There are still a large number of unknown variables. Arrhenius showed that extra CO2 in the atmosphere would have only a small and decreasing effect because of its logarithmic relationship to global temperature. What he postulated was its effect would be to evaporate the very powerful Green House Gas, water vapour, from the oceans into the atmosphere and ,in his opinion, make living in colder parts of the planet more comfortable. He called that the positive feedback effect. However Arrhenius did not factor, for example, cloud effects into his hypothesis and their possibly negative effect on his postulated positive feedback effect. Climate “scientists” of the alarmist variety are still ignorant of cloud effects on “CO2 climate change” as well as the effect of many other vitally important variables.

    In many ways they are no more than followers of the ancient Pagans who sacrificed their children and others to appease the wrathful weather gods.

  • Wayne Cook

    “The EPA is in charge of clean air for America. We must not have a professional climate denier in charge. This is an emergency,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz recently tweeted.’

    The EPA was responsible for the worst water pollution disaster in history, whereupon the EPA onsite manager, Hays Griswold resigned to avoid official investigation.

Inspiration
How Do We Prepare to be Fully Prepared?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us