Scott Pruit (EPA) Favors a Climate Science Challenge

Posted by Tina

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency is a level headed guy who brings calm and reason to the ongoing cage fight about Global Warming/Climate Change. Instead of choosing a side or adopting a political stance he favors a scientific approach, suggesting a challenge in the pursuit of truth:

…Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.

Christy has testified on the value of “red teams” for climate science many times in the past decade. This time, however, environmentalists and “consensus” scientists are worried Congress will take him seriously.

Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.

Consensus supporters are four square against the idea of course. But if they are so certain in their findings what are they afraid will happen?

If Congress won’t authorize this common sense approach to this issue there should be nothing to stop “deniers” in the science field from taking on the challenge themselves. They don’t need lefty publications to peer review…thy can publish the results of the challenge independently.

(Meanwhile, Al Gore is spending the summer on an indoctrination tour with an new/updated version of his crisis film.)

This entry was posted in America's energy, Business and Industry, Civil Rights, Education, Energy and Conservation, Global Warming/ Climate Change, science. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Scott Pruit (EPA) Favors a Climate Science Challenge

  1. TruthToPower says:

    How about we just look at the biggest ice breaks in both the north and south pole?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2012/dec/12/chasing-ice-iceberg-greenland-video

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/a-new-crack-in-one-of-antarcticas-biggest-ice-shelves-could-mean-a-major-break-is-near-20170503-gvyg6d.html

    google around

    Pruitt is an EPA hack and was put there to destroy any protections that interfere with the Oil companies and greedy Baxters

    http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pruitt-letter-from-EPA-veterans-2017.02.06.pdf

    The science is there no one needs a Conservative clown show

    France has offered 4 yr grants to US Climate Scientists.

    I say go scientists why stay in a country that only serves corporate profits for the elite

    You need truth? Well if you are waiting for the conservative mouthpieces to admit they are wrong just be glad you are old and your actions only affect future generations

    http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pruitt-letter-from-EPA-veterans-2017.02.06.pdf

    Politicizing everything only serves the Red Pill / Blue Pill People

    Science has no party and Pruitt is a hack pure and simple.

    media = Political party PR Firms

    • Tina says:

      So Dewey…in terms of the climate change issue your comment places you on the side of consensus, a democrat forged and democrat pushed position. You have taken sides whether you admit it or not. Your mind is closed and you’re in it for globalist control which will be a hell much more dire than your demon corporate imaginings.

      You site the media (guardian) and then admonish me for paying attention to media? Apparently the media is terrific when it parrots your own delusional rantings.

      It is precisely because of the false findings and reports that the red team-blue team challenge should be done. When there is disagreement in the scientific community, and there is, scientists are OBLIGATED to challenge the theories.

      Consensus science is not science, it is politics!

    • Joe says:

      The climate has always been changing mostly due to solar cycles. The man made Co2 climate change theory is a scam. David Stockman nails it.

      http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/global-warming-rhetoric-versus-reality/

      For our part, we are hoping the Donald takes on the greatest “environmental hoax” of the modern era—even if it does accelerate his downfall. That’s because it is based on a raw, statist will-to-political-power-and-control that knows no limits—including the deliberate and systematic distortion and massaging of the data to fit a threadbare theory that defies common sense and a decent regard for the known facts of the planet’s history.

      Among these are the span between 980AD and 1750AD which clearly encompassed a pre-industrial era. The beginning of this span saw Eric the Red name and settle “Greenland” not because he was color blind or wished to starve to death on a sheet of ice; and the latter marked the waning days of the Thames Frost Festivals, which did not occur annually because the Londoners of the time were foolish enough to try ice skating on cold water.

      In fact, during the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1300 AD) Greenland was a swell spot for Norse farming colonies and the eventual flourishing of agricultural and fishing trade with the Norwegian fatherland, while during the Maunder Minimum ( 1645 to 1715 AD) or Little Ice Age giant “frost festivals”, like the scene depicted below from 1685, were held on the Thames and most European rivers without fear of plunging into the icy drink.

      In short, the Medieval Warm Period was far hotter than anything recorded today—with temperatures 2 degrees centigrade higher than at present and ocean waters up to 25 feet higher. Likewise, the winter colds of the Maunder Minimum have not been experienced in the northern latitudes for several centuries.

      What varied during that 800 year span, of course, was the solar cycle, not the level of industrial activity—of which there was none.

      Indeed, the Maunder Minimum refers exactly to the lack of sunspot activity, as recorded by observers at the time. Likewise, core samples from Greenland’s icy glaciers document clearly that levels of CO2 were far higher in 1017 than they are in 2017. That’s because carbon levels follow the solar cycle driven planetary temperature variations rather than cause them.

      In any event, the Donald’s pending jail break from the Paris Accords will further isolate him in the Imperial City—even if it does win him plaudits in the Rust Belt.

      But no matter. The Deep State’s prosecution of his incumbency under the RussiaGate file is gaining intensity as it strikes at his son-in-law and chief confident, while a calamitous debt ceiling crisis is now less than 90 days away according to the lights of his own Treasury Secretary.

      We will turn next to the facts and inevitability of the debt-ceiling crisis which will cause a thunderous panic among the clueless gamblers on Wall Street; and to why the resulting 40% plunge in the stock market will pave the way for the Donald’s eventual demise.

      But the heart of the matter is that the Washington-Wall Street establishment rests on a bipartisan political foundation that has no use for existential threats to their continued rule, respectively.

      http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-undrainable-swamp-why-the-donald-is-going-down-part-1/

      • Tina says:

        Joe I suspect the entire reason for switching from “global warming” to “climate change” was the revelation that a) the sun is the main driver of climate cycles, and b) that activity on the sun has diminished in the last few years signaling a cooling trend. The warming scammers would look like fools had they stuck to their original label.

        A recent article in Astronomy Now, “Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030” backs up the assertions you’ve made:

        The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University.

        It is known that the Sun has its own magnetic field, the amplitude and spatial configuration of which vary with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere results in the changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, of the intensity of plasma flows coming from the Sun, and the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface. The study of changes in the number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface has a cyclic structure vary in every 11 years that is also imposed on the Earth environment as the analysis of carbon-14, beryllium-10 and other isotopes in glaciers and in the trees showed.

        There are several cycles with different periods and properties, while the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle are the best known of them. The 11-year cycle appears as a cyclical reduction in stains on the surface of the Sun every 11 years. Its 90-year variation is associated with periodic reduction in the number of spots in the 11-year cycle in the 50-25%. In 17th century, though, there was a prolonged reduction in solar activity called the Maunder minimum, which lasted roughly from 1645 to 1700. During this period, there were only about 50 sunspots instead of the usual 40-50 thousand sunspots. Analysis of solar radiation showed that its maxima and minima almost coincide with the maxima and minima in the number of spots. …

        … The new reduction of the solar activity will lead to reduction of the solar irradiance by 3W/m2 according to Lean (1997). This resulted in significant cooling of Earth and very severe winters and cold summers. “Several studies have shown that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest phase of global cooling, which was called “the Little Ice Age”. During this period there were very cold winters in Europe and North America. In the days of the Maunder minimum the water in the river Thames and the Danube River froze, the Moscow River was covered by ice every six months, snow lay on some plains year round and Greenland was covered by glaciers” – says Dr Helen Popova, who developed a unique physical-mathematical model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the Sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation.

        If the similar reduction will be observed during the upcoming Maunder minimum this can lead to the similar cooling of the Earth atmosphere. According to Dr Helen Popova, if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one occurred during the Maunder minimum.

        However, only the time will show soon enough (within the next 5-15 years) if this will happen. …

        … he notion that solar activity affects the climate, appeared long ago. It is known, for example, that a change in the total quantity of the electromagnetic radiation by only 1% can result in a noticeable change in the temperature distribution and air flow all over the Earth.

        There is so much yet to be learned. It’s ridiculous, even dangerous, to put ourselves in financial ruin over this manufactured crisis.

        I used to have respect for David Stockman. I agree with some of what he says now but I think he may be wrong in his gloom and doom predicitions…he keeps pushing the time frame back.

        We’re all in for the ride whether we want to be or not.

  2. Harold says:

    Yep good ol’ Gore again: “Meanwhile, Al Gore is spending the summer on an indoctrination tour with an new/updated version of his crisis film. ”

    These are older facts, However in Gores heyday of Greening up the hoi polloi like us, he and his household in Nashville household used more than 12 times the average for a typical household in that area., Gores’ Nashville residence consumed a larger proportion of energy than the average American home — and that was proven to be true.
    Also Gore reportedly pocketed $100 million, and in doing so he pushed to conclude the transaction completed before higher tax rates kicked in on January 1 of that year.
    Sort of like Kerry who avoids taxes by docking his yacht other than in his home state
    But back to Al Gore, so what’s the problem? The problem is that Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar, which receives the bulk of its wealth from fossil fuels. Gore was grilled over this apparent hypocrisy, first by Matt Lauer: (hard to believe a media DNC lackey asking this question, but that was then).

    Lauer challenged him on the fact that he had criticized the influence of fossil fuel money in television, but then got very wealthy selling his network to another network that exists because of fossil fuel money. Al Jazeera had the money to pay Gore $500 million because of fossil fuels.
    Then there’s Google’s “good for thee but not for me” attitude about going green seems like a page out of Gore’s playbook, and it should as Google has had plenty of time to learn directly from the discredited environmental prophet Gore, whom they paid handsomely to serve as a senior(GREEN) advisor beginning in 2001 until ?

    Google executives have flown more than 3.4 million miles, burning an average of 100,000 gallons of fuel every month during those years.
    All that jet fuel comes from refined crude oil – lots of it. Facts showed Google’s planes have burned through nearly59 million barrels of crude since 2007, much of it gallivanting to elite playgrounds and exotic destinations (almost 300 flights by count) like Nantucket, Aspen, Costa Rica, St. Maarten, Hawaii, and Bermuda, and even obscure island paradises like Babelthuap, Tortola and Tahiti.

    Those trips and the amount of crude used to fuel Google’s planes could provide all the gasoline used by 11,500 American drivers for a whole year. And I not saying they should not have fun and travel, just don’t be hypocrites about it.

    The supposedly environmentally conscious company’s jets have emitted more than 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide over the last four years alone, and Google was advised no less by AL Gore how to go green, or play the role, much like Gore himself, whose own private jet is a gross polluter amount jets itself.

    Al Gore tell us all “You should never run a red light.”
    But when his own actions were pointed out “But you just ran a red light.”
    Al Gore inconvenient truth style of answer, “Yes, but I was in a hurry.”

    • J. Soden says:

      Well said, Harold!
      You’ll find AlBore’s photo next to the words “hypocrite” and “hoaxer” in the newest version of the dictionary.

  3. Tina says:

    Thanks, Harold, for the reminders of the hypocrisy involved in this gigantic scam.

    Al Gore has created a middle class killing monster through his propaganda and at the same time profited grandly from it. His hypocrisy and lies should be exposed. I can’t think of a better way to do it than through this challenge.

    The radicals are pushing harder than ever to shut down opposing views as well as challenges to their unproven theories.

    The politicization of science bleeds into the pharmaceutical and medical fields as well.

    A good article covering all of these fields in the Climate Change Dispatch is worth a read. Here’s an excerpt that applies to climate change:

    When there are so many scientists with distinguished backgrounds, who come directly from the fields in question, making statements that are completely ridiculed by mainstream media, we should be taking notice. Why aren’t any of these scientists given a voice in corporate media? And why does corporate media make people feel stupid and even scared to look into or even contemplate what they have to say?

    In the interview below (see video), Richard Lindzen mentions the monopolization of science, arguing that science has become a tool to push forth political, economic, and financial agendas.

    It’s amazing that so many people are afraid of scientific challenges to the theory that man is the big driver of climate change and to a dangerous degree. But that just shows the level of success climate crisis propagandists have had.

  4. Pete says:

    How about we just try to put fewer pollutants into our atmosphere. Personally I like the cleanest possible air and water. I frequently drive up Hwy 32 and back down. On the way back down it’s easy to see the layer of haze that blankets our valley. BTW…our north valley sky appears much clearer than years ago. I wonder why that is. No need for scientific studies to know that clean air and water is good.

    • J. Soden says:

      Ever notice that there’s always more wind during an election year . . . ?
      Best way to curb air pollution would be to curb the continuing hot air spewed by politicians and media presstitutes.

  5. Tina says:

    Pete that’s all we’ve been doing for several decades.

    The haze we see is made up of sand, dust and smoke.

    Sand and dust are irritants. The more harmful pollutants are invisible to the eye. These are the ones American companies like this one have worked hard to eliminate. (Believe it or not these people like clean air and water too…smile)

    It’s about time the US got some credit for the commitment we have made, including that of American companies that have stepped up and paid for new technologies to reduce pollution. Demonizing companies that have already demonstrated their commitment is counterproductive (And, lets face it, an underhanded form of party politics).

    You don’t have to wonder Pete. The awareness movement worked. Unsatisfied, it’s become the badgering, tyrannical movement. But putting that aside, we in the US have led the way and done the actual work.

    Since Trump put the members of NATO on notice to keep their commitments and meet their financial Canada and at least one other member has announced increses in defense spending.

    Maybe the rest of the world will begin to meet their obligations to clean air and water now that Trump has exposed the lopsided climate accord. We can at least hope.

  6. Joe says:

    If you smelled a Demorat in that gas, diesel and car tax it wasn’t your imagination…

    That is the reason why in 2002, voters passed Proposition 42 confining the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes only. But shortly after, legislators still siphoned off the money to the state budget.

    Voters responded in 2006 with Proposition 1A, limiting the Legislature’s ability to suspend Proposition 42. Then the Legislature used accounting gimmicks to pay off bonds instead of build up our highways. Citizens responded again in 2010 with Proposition 22, prohibiting gasoline excise tax funds from being used to pay for debt. Now the Legislature diverts $1 billion a year from trucking weight fees to the state budget’s general fund.

    Majority party leaders have promised that the taxes will be used to pay for roads and highways. Yet despite claims otherwise, $80 million will be spent on parks. Another $100 million will be used to fund the Active Transportation Program, likely for bike paths and walkways — not roads.

    Read more here http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion-real-story-behind-largest-gas-tax-increase-in-california-history/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *