Trump picks prominent climate sceptic as EPA chief 

Posted: December 8, 2016 by oldbrew in climate, government, Politics

A man who has regularly sued the US Environmental Protection Agency is about to become its boss.
Scott Pruitt says: ‘Dissent is not a crime’.


President-elect Donald Trump is poised to name Scott Pruitt, a prominent skeptic of climate science and an ardent foe of government action on climate change, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to media reports.

Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, has been a leading architect of legal opposition to President Barack Obama’s climate and environmental policies.

“Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time,” Pruitt and Luther Strange, the attorney general of Alabama, wrote in a May opinion piece in National Review, criticizing plans by some state attorneys general to investigate fossil fuel companies. “That debate is far from settled. 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. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Not surprisingly, environmental groups have offered dim views of Pruitt’s record since his name surfaced as a possible candidate for the EPA job. “Attorney General Pruitt has apparently never seen an EPA rule that didn’t prompt him to run to court to have it blocked,” Keith Gaby of the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C., wrote in late November. “Since becoming Oklahoma’s top legal officer in 2011, Pruitt has sued the EPA to stop vital protections for public health—including standards for reducing soot and smog pollution that crosses interstate lines; protections against emissions of mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other toxic pollutants from power plants; and standards to improve air quality in national parks and wilderness areas. Each time he failed.”

Source: Trump Picks Prominent Climate Sceptic As EPA Chief | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Talkshop comment: Pruitt argues that he often won concessions even in cases he lost in court.
Court Losses Won’t Deter Attorney General Scott Pruitt In His Fight With The EPA | StateImpact Oklahoma

  1. It must be Christmas….

  2. oldbrew says:

    Bring on the ‘healthy debate’ 😉

  3. Tim Hammond says:

    “Dissent is not a crime” is only the halfway point.

    The Greens want to make dissent a crime because they believe that not believing is morally wrong.

    The same is true of many issues, e.g. immigration where one side of the debate believe that disagreement is a sign of evil.

    What we need to move away from are these moral judgments on what are largely non-moral issues. It is not evil to doubt AGW. It is not evil to think you can have too much immigration, it is not evil to think the welfare state should be reformed or state spending reduced.

  4. AlecM says:

    A PhD engineer? What the hell does he know about science, technology and climate alchemy?

    We need another effing lawyer, willing to say whatever the highest bidder wants.

  5. rishrac says:

    As an American and a skeptic, I can only cheer his appointment.

  6. Beeb face palm

    “Aspects of the debate are far from settled – if you ask me how much carbon can we afford to dump in the atmosphere and keep temperatures well below two degrees, I would say there is an uncertainty in that number of a factor of three,” Prof Myles Allen from the University of Oxford, told BBC News.
    He says that he believes the Trump administration is being “smart” and cautions researchers against engaging in a battle over fundamental issues. The legitimate argument, he says, is about how much climate change are we as a world are prepared to take and what do we do to limit it.
    “Part of that is how much do we care about small island states versus the interests of American industry. These are ethical and political questions,” he said.
    “If the Trump administration wants to come out and say we are good with four degrees (of warming), they should open that argument.
    “If on the the other hand they agree with the Paris goal of stabilising temps well below two degrees and nothing they’ve said suggests they disagree with that goal, they just think it will be easier than many people fear- then we can have a very different conversations, which are about how we achieve that.”

  7. Yes Santa, I have been good this year…..

    Professor Dame Julia Slingo says farewell to the @metoffice, after 8 years as Chief Scientist.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Julia Slingos her hook. Marvellous. Do you think her replacement will be any less biddable?

  9. Perhaps our old friend Richard Betts will get an early present…. lol.

  10. AlecM says:

    Now lookee here, Myles Allen desperately struggling to find a new role as chief British Sceptic. The man, like all unprofessional scientists, is a fool who went for power without understanding that IPCC pseudoscience is based on fundamental scientific fraud(s) in 1976.

    Now, I can understand such dullards have failed to understand why Cess and GISS acted as they did, assuming Planck’s radiative physics had to be correct then justifying lack of heating on mistakes by Sagan and Pollack (1967), van der Hulst (1967) and Hansen (1969).

    However, he should never have become so dogmatic when there was always considerable doubt and 20 years lack of heating. The real AGW in the 1980s and 1990s was not from CO2!!!!!!!!!

  11. TA says:

    ““If the Trump administration wants to come out and say we are good with four degrees (of warming), they should open that argument.”

    It should be noted that the levels of warming that are supposed to be harmful to humans was “pulled out of thin air” by advocates of CAGW. They are just guessing as to what the effects of a certain level of warming will have.

    No baseline for warming harm has been established. What we have is a guess.

  12. tom0mason says:

    Maybe Scott Pruitt introduction to his new co-works should be something like this —

    Ladies and gentlemen of the EPA, I’m your new boss and I would like to reassure you that I’m a great believer in science and the scientific methods. I would like to assure you that this agency will be, from today, run on proven scientific methods.
    ‘What are these methods?’ I here you say, well luckily, Richard Feynman is on video to explain that, but before that here is the written statement you will all be getting:

    “In general we look for a new law by the following process.
    First we guess it.
    Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
    Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
    If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is.
    It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

    That is all there is to it.”

    – Lecture by Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)

    OK roll video ….

  13. oldbrew says:

    Or it might go like this: ‘Hi folks! Any volunteers for early retirement…’

  14. 2016 is proving to be a great year!

  15. hunter says:

    The EPA needs a deep thorough review before the desperately needed reforms can take place. An experienced prosecuting attorney as boss add sounds about right.

  16. David A Anderson says:

    Do readers want to win public support for rational enviromental policy?

    The alarmists cannot stand the light. Public Policy Debates would gain massive audience and FORCE the left to real debate instead of MSM talking points!

    PLEASE contact the Trump Transition Team and request Policy debates.

    Presedential Public Policy Debates (PPPD) on CAGW and other issues like immigration with people like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and David Horowitz debating whomever the left wants to send to embarrass.

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming debate would be excellent. The left CANNOT win those debates. So PLEASE email the Trump Transition Team to set these up.
    Edit Reply

  17. tchannon says:

    Don’t know the game, thought it was ace high, only to be trumped by a joker

  18. oldbrew says:


    ‘Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s nomination for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is as clear a signal as the incoming administration can send with regard to its environmental policies.’

    Could get ugly 😎

  19. oldbrew says:

    Guardian: UK slashes number of Foreign Office climate change staff

    In London, the number of staff working full time on climate change is down by more than two thirds, from 26 in July 2013 to eight now. Overseas, the figure is down from 177 in March 2013 to 149 today.

    Doing a Trump perhaps, but who knew there were any such folk?

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    AlecM December 8, 2016 at 3:40 pm,

    “Now, I can understand such dullards have failed to understand why Cess and GISS acted as they did, assuming Planck’s radiative physics had to be correct then justifying lack of heating on mistakes by Sagan and Pollack (1967), van der Hulst (1967) and Hansen (1969).”

    Listing Sagan with those charlatans is unfair. Sagan corrected his prediction of the surface temperature of Venus in 1968 even though he did not know whether nitrogen or CO2 dominated the atmospheric composition. He was smart enough to realise that the Cp for these gases is roughly the same so the atmospheric composition has little effect.…152.1119S

  21. gallopingcamel says:

    oldbrew, December 9, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    You are going to love what happens next. Trump plans to roll back federal government regulations and especially those that make life difficult for the energy industries.

    Energy in the USA is about to become dramatically cheaper. It won’t just be frakking and nuclear………look out for shale oil and methane clathrates.

    The Green River formation has reserves equivalent to 4.2 trillion barrels of oil or roughly 100 times the current US proven oil reserves (37 billion barrels):

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    Frakking involves injecting water into the ground whereas microwave processing of shale keragen extracts water from the ground.

  23. oldbrew says:

    GC: yes, GWPF covered it a few days ago.

    Date: 06/12/16 James Watkins, OZY News

    America’s oil shale boom hasn’t even started yet.

    What will they do with it all 😎

  24. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motl puts the boot in with his usual direct style…

    ‘… the Trump transition team has ordered a list of the Department of Energy employees who have “worked” on the climate hysteria and related policies. The language sounds assertive enough and I hope that all these people will be fired’

    Against Trump, climate alarmists’ lawyers are fighting the last war

  25. With these solid foundations I have every expectation that Met Office science will continue to thrive and I give my successor, Professor Stephen Belcher, my very best wishes for the future.

  26. oldbrew says:

    News report: Shakedowns of corporations by EPA seen ending under Trump administration

    Many environmentalists are having a meltdown over President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head up the EPA, and it “has nothing to do with climate change,” radio host Erick Erickson said on Dec. 8.

    Erickson concluded: “When you hear environmental groups complaining about Scott Pruitt, remember that these groups are going to get hit hard financially because the EPA will get out of the business of shaking down corporations to fund leftwing groups.”

  27. Power Grab says:

    Here’s a fascinating suggestion:

    “Trump needs to fire the top 50 DOE people and then reask the question….”

    That comes from here: