EPA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox

 

By Paul Burich

Trump’s new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was badly bloodied in a TV interview, not by Liberal “Mainstream Media” … but by Chris Wallace of Fox News.

Pruitt was unable to counter a number of standard AGW (Anthropomorphic Global Warming) canards 1) that 2015 and 2016 were the “hottest years on record” 2) the UN IPCC is some kind of unbiased, authoritative source and 3) the plaintive “what if you’re wrong?” question that begs the response: “What if YOU’RE wrong?” (A: We cripple our economy, punish the poor, and have essentially zero impact on global climate”).

According to Breitbart’s Delingpole, Trump’s EPA head just screwed the pooch on Fox News Sunday. How could the guy have been so poorly prepared? I could have batted those questions back with ease, and yet Trump’s guy can’t even manage to read a few books, and/or articles, and/or get briefed by somebody knowledgeable on the most basic issues in his portfolio? In a few months time? JHCOAC!!
The climate has warmed since record-keeping began and mankind has contributed to that rise. The questions are 1) is mankind’s contribution the main driver? 2) what are the other major factors at play? 3) why assume that the climate of the last 200 years is optimal given the 60 million year presence of mammals on Earth and modern mankind’s 200,000 years? Warmer weather seems to be improving forest, plant, and crop growth.

(Full interview: https://youtu.be/zULrRprS4j8 )
I banged this out in about 15 minutes. I would think that Scott Pruitt could have memorized something along these lines since he was named as Trump’s EPA pick:
  1. The climate models have been unerringly WRONG in predicting even the past. Based upon the way they are constructed, regardless of input data they reliably produce a rising temperature curve. 
  2. The predicted temperature rises have NOT happened. Only by corrupting the raw data can the alarmists claim that the last few years have been the warmest on record (see #4 below). Furthermore, the increase in temperature that they have cited to make those claims ARE WITHIN THE MEASUREMENT MARGIN OF ERROR.
  3. Climate science is in its infancy and the massive scale of the data required to model the climate is far beyond even our most advanced supercomputers. The notion that we can reliably predict climate 75 years in the future is akin to economists predicting economic conditions 75 years into the future. It is absurd on its face–particularly when every single global climate model ignores the effects of changes in solar radiation (you would naturally think that the sun’s impact might be worth considering).
  4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it has been at much higher levels (at much as 10x higher) in the pre-industrial age. Water vapor is actually a far stronger greenhouse gas and the climate models are not capable of capturing the impact of clouds, and indeed, invariably assume that the cloud cover feedback mechanisms enhance warming–without any strong evidentiary basis. In fact, it is entirely possible that increases in CO2 concentrations are an effect and not the cause of warming.
  5. NOAA and other keepers of temperature databases have been repeatedly caught corrupting the raw data, skewing temps lower in the past and higher in the present in order to accentuate the rise.
  6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change summaries so relied upon by left-wing politicians and activists are political–not scientific–documents that many real climate scientists have driven Mack trucks over. They have had to walk back their claims repeatedly and substantially.
  7. The peer review process for climate science research has been thoroughly corrupted. Major journals such as Science and Nature magazines have refused to publish articles of those skeptical of alarmist claims. They have also conspired to ensure that articles in support of alarmist claims are reviewed only by peers in agreement with the article’s claims.
  8. Climate Change is a huge business worth $1.5 trillion per year. Government funding for climate scientists dwarfs that from the oil and gas industry by a factor of over 50:1. It is folly to believe that climate scientists whose careers and livelihood are dependent upon 10’s of billions of dollars in government grants are simply principled altruists who are immune to rice bowl corruption.
  9. Even if the US were to cripple its economy and meet the the EPA carbon reduction targets, we would reduce global carbon use by less that 2%. We are the only country in the world to actually meet the Kyoto targets and reduce our carbon use. Europe? Not close. And the two countries with the largest carbon use growth: China and India. Not close–quite the opposite.
Paul Burich holds a BA in Physical Geography, UC Berkeley (1974). That involved a number of climatology classes. He edited a publication on California weather anomalies in 1974 for a professor of Meteorology. In the late 1980’s he served as the Material Manager for the GOES Weather Satellites I-M at Space Systems Loral. Hew is not a scientist and his work was non-technical in nature, but he worked closely in support of the engineers responsible for the earth sensors–the devices that collect the temperature sounding data–learning quite a bit in the process.

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments