Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A.

[Jessicka]

This is what we voted for. No one should be surprised by these picks. Not much we can do about it but ride out the next 4 years.

My understand is, that it's not, that Trump doesn't have close to the popular vote. So, no, you didn't vote for it.

Good. Climate change is the biggest scam of all time.

If you can find 100 scientists that say global warming is real, you will find another 100 saying it total horseshit.

There is nothing concrete that can justify the billions poured into this scam at the expense of jobs and taxpayers and the economy.

I hope it dies a very quick death. Australia just pulled funding for it too. Hopefully more follow suit

97% of Scientists are in agreement that climate change is real, and man-made factors are by far the strongest driver of it. Good luck finding 100 that think it's horse shit.

- - - Updated - - -

I always wonder how in the fuck America managed to politicize climate change.
Corruption?

Nailed it. More specifically, the very lobbying and lobbyists Trump professes to oppose.

[Raelbo]

Those two aren't really different, both involve people with odd faith based beliefs denying reality (we know they exist and we know where they came from).

Which is what makes it such a perfect analogy for climate change deniers.

[Raelbo]

97% of Scientists are in agreement that climate change is real, and man-made factors are by far the strongest driver of it. Good luck finding 100 that think it's horse shit.

Actually it's 97% of climate scientists. There are tens of thousands of scientists in the world, a significant portion of whom know fuck all about climate. I am sure you can scrape together 100 denialists among them.

[sarahtasher]

You do realize that after 1945, coal power declined worldwivde to be the point that outside of the US, it had to be nationalized under various pretenses ?

- - - Updated - - -

My understand is, that it's not, that Trump doesn't have close to the popular vote. So, no, you didn't vote for it.



97% of Scientists are in agreement that climate change is real, and man-made factors are by far the strongest driver of it. Good luck finding 100 that think it's horse shit.

- - - Updated - - -



Nailed it. More specifically, the very lobbying and lobbyists Trump professes to oppose.

1000 scientists from Harvard and MIT are ''liburals'', 1 dude from a fundy bible college that got a degree by correspondance in bible studies is ''uhn expurt''

[Daerio]

I always wonder how in the fuck America managed to politicize climate change.
Corruption?

Sure, on both sides. Democrats manage to funnel federal funding to private scam corporations instead of places they would be effective, like tax breaks on individual home owners for adding solar panels to their houses, or funding/mandate that all new houses must be built with a number of solar panels.

I prefer the first to the second, because I think that actually is an effective and market-savvy method. Democrats, however, prefer to keep earmarking federal funding to crony corporations that in turn give them campaign funding and a job making 200,000$ a year after they get voted out of office.

So really, neither side is interested in viable solutions for the public; only in whatever benefits them the most personally. Because that's the only way anyone really gets ahead in this country.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I always wonder how in the fuck America managed to politicize climate change.
Corruption?

Besides what others have said, insistence on making everything black and white plays a part.

Instead of 'Climate change is a natural thing that exists', 'Climate change is a natural thing and humans are affecting the rate at which it is occurring', 'Climate change is a thing humans caused', 'Climate change is a thing but humans have no effect on it', and 'Climate change is not a thing'; the US only seems to have 'Climate change is a thing caused by humans' and 'Climate change is not a thing' with nothing inbetween, at least in political discourse.

[Jessicka]

Sure, on both sides. Democrats manage to funnel federal funding to private scam corporations instead of places they would be effective, like tax breaks on individual home owners for adding solar panels to their houses, or funding/mandate that all new houses must be built with a number of solar panels.

I prefer the first to the second, because I think that actually is an effective and market-savvy method. Democrats, however, prefer to keep earmarking federal funding to crony corporations that in turn give them campaign funding and a job making 200,000$ a year after they get voted out of office.

So really, neither side is interested in viable solutions for the public; only in whatever benefits them the most personally. Because that's the only way anyone really gets ahead in this country.

You realise that Oil, Gas, Coal, all needed government support to build the infrastructure to make it viable? Same actually applies even to things like cable broadband. Why would renewables be any different? The Private sector is never going to have the capital to self-fund (inter)national expansion of technologies like this.

[sarahtasher]

And once again people, coal is in decline in the USA because of increased energy production from all other sources. If you drill more oil and dig more coal, prices will drop for both.

I hate to tell you that, but energy concerns are not charities.

[Themius]

Good. Climate change is the biggest scam of all time.

If you can find 100 scientists that say global warming is real, you will find another 100 saying it total horseshit.

There is nothing concrete that can justify the billions poured into this scam at the expense of jobs and taxpayers and the economy.

I hope it dies a very quick death. Australia just pulled funding for it too. Hopefully more follow suit

It's more like if you can find 100 scientist who say it's real you can find 3 nut jobs who says it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it's 97% of climate scientists. There are tens of thousands of scientists in the world, a significant portion of whom know fuck all about climate. I am sure you can scrape together 100 denialists among them.

Wait you think the opinions of a chemist who doesn't study the climate in any way should be equal to that of a climatologist?

[I Push Buttons]

It's more like if you can find 100 scientist who say it's real you can find 3 nut jobs who says it's not.

More like for every 100 scientists who say its real, there is one "scientist" who also purely coincidentally is employed by an oil conglomerate that says its a lie to destroy the oil business.

[sarahtasher]

It's more like if you can find 100 scientist who say it's real you can find 3 nut jobs who says it's not.

- - - Updated - - -



Wait you think the opinions of a chemist who doesn't study the climate in any way should be equal to that of a climatologist?

It certainly beat the opinion of Alex Jones.

[Azadina]

I always wonder how in the fuck America managed to politicize climate change.
Corruption?

That's what happens when the corruption you mention, is renamed into "freedom of speech". Everywhere else it's still illegal or looked down upon, and remain unchanged.

[Raelbo]

Wait you think the opinions of a chemist who doesn't study the climate in any way should be equal to that of a climatologist?

That's the complete opposite of what I was implying

[Daerio]

You realise that Oil, Gas, Coal, all needed government support to build the infrastructure to make it viable? Same actually applies even to things like cable broadband. Why would renewables be any different? The Private sector is never going to have the capital to self-fund (inter)national expansion of technologies like this.

Errr... no, "renewables" ARE different. I just explained how government could incentivize homeowners to "go green" themselves. The government can literally make the solar panels free (which is what they've done in my state, and I live in one of those climate-change-denying red states!) through tax breaks. Why is government "investment" in "renewables" needed beyond this? Solar panels for example use existing power line infrastructure that the government presumably has already invested in.

If an individual homeowner tries to scam the government there is recourse and punishment. There is no recourse when government hands out a contract to a shitty crony company that doesn't deliver anything. The DNC strategy of absorb and redistribute all wealth only works out for the people collecting all the money.

[Netherspark]

Trump is going shit all over your country and the planet itself, while trying to convince everyone it smells like strawberries.

[caervek]

Which is what makes it such a perfect analogy for climate change deniers.

Indeed, not sure why the guy used two analogies that meant pretty much the same thing though.

[Orlong]

I was listening to a report on this guy on NPR;

This guy thinks the state EPA should be the one making the decisions not the federal EPA, and it seems likely he will curtail the federal EPA. From my perspective, the interesting thing about the way that works, is that the most populous state gets to make the national policy.

The CA EPA basically sets the fuel efficiency of cars, because car manufacturers sell more cars in CA, and they can't make two types of cars, one for CA and one for every other state.

CA had to get special permission from the federal EPA to have rules that were actually more strict. So if he removes federal EPA restrictions, expect the CA EPA to be the one that sets the rules for a lot of sectors, not just cars and appliances.

Or he could do the right thing and restrict California from making any regulations more strict than federal ones since the whole state is full of tree huggers, hippies, and crazy people

[Al Gorefiend]

Good. Climate change is the biggest scam of all time.

If you can find 100 scientists that say global warming is real, you will find another 100 saying it total horseshit.

There is nothing concrete that can justify the billions poured into this scam at the expense of jobs and taxpayers and the economy.

I hope it dies a very quick death. Australia just pulled funding for it too. Hopefully more follow suit

Let's ask Australia how that Great Barrier Reef is doing right now.

[Jessicka]

Errr... no, "renewables" ARE different. I just explained how government could incentivize homeowners to "go green" themselves. The government can literally make the solar panels free (which is what they've done in my state) through tax breaks. Why is government "investment" in "renewables" needed beyond this? Solar panels for example use existing power line infrastructure that the government presumably has already invested in.

If an individual homeowner tries to scam the government there is recourse and punishment. There is no recourse when government hands out a contract to a shitty crony company that doesn't deliver anything. The DNC strategy of absorb and redistribute all wealth only works out for the people collecting all the money.

This is more an argument as to whether you should have state owned companies producing and installing them; I don't believe that's popular recourse in the US because 'free market', 'customer choice' etc. Although I wouldn't argue that that is how it should be done, given state buying power for an essential commodity.

[Bodakane]

Or he could do the right thing and restrict California from making any regulations more strict than federal ones since the whole state is full of tree huggers, hippies, and crazy people

What???!?!??!?!? Now you want to take away state's rights?