Science? We don’t need no stinkin’ science.

Or, so says the full-on climate denier, Scott Pruitt, now heading the EPA:

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Thursday that carbon dioxide was not a primary contributor to global warming, a statement at odds with the established scientific consensus on climate change.

Asked his views on the role of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels, in increasing global warming, Mr. Pruitt said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

“But we don’t know that yet,” he added. “We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

Mr. Pruitt’s statement contradicts decades of research and analysis by international scientific institutions and federal agencies, including the E.P.A. His remarks on Thursday, which were more categorical than similar testimony before the Senate, may also put him in conflict with laws and regulations that the E.P.A. is charged with enforcing.

But, hey, on the bright side, in undoing pesky clean air and clean water regulations, Pruitt will surely Make America Great Again.  Science is for losers.  Sad.

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State

7 Responses to Science? We don’t need no stinkin’ science.

  1. Jon K says:

    There’s plenty of evidence that co2 is causing climate change. We’ve got the satellite data, we’ve got the melting ice in the arctic (a cruise ship successfully traveled the Northwest passage last year), and we’ve got the ocean temperatures which confirm the reality of climate change in a more damning manner than anything else.

    My dad, a climate scientist, was just recently telling me about when he became firmly convinced about climate change being caused by human burning fossil fuels. He said it was when the climate scientists took their models and ran them retrospectively. The only way the models accounted for the climate patterns in the 20th century was when they factored in the increased carbon dioxide emissions. When those were taken into account the models matched perfectly.

    Those who choose to discount climate science are allowing their distaste for policies that may be enacted to mitigate or adapt to it to prevent them from being able to accept clearly understood objective truth. I hope that I never get so blinded by my ideological religion that I refuse to see reality.

    Conservatives have this problem with climate change. Fundamentalists have the same problem with evolution. Many on the left have the exact same problem with vaccines and GMO food. Rigidly holding to ideological dogma can clearly make people stupid.

    • Steve Greene says:

      Yep. And you know I hate the vaccine and GMO stuff, but that’s not nearly as ideologically imbalanced as the others. A surprising number of conservatives are also pretty dumb on those.

      • Jon K says:

        Yeah and they both have equally stupid reasons for those beliefs.

        On the left it is mistrust of big pharma and large corporations. Of course everything that comes from them is evil.

        On the right it is distaste for government and government intervention. A prime example is Rush Limbaugh on the flu shot: “Screw you, Ms. Sebelius, I’m not going to take it precisely because you’re now telling me I must.”

        Both viewpoints are examples of having one’s ability to think rationally short circuited by ideological dogma.

      • Steve Greene says:

        I would argue not equally stupid. Big Pharma’s chief goal is profits. Government certainly makes mistakes all the time, but it’s chief goal is to promote the general welfare.

    • rgbact says:

      Theres a number of statisticians that have been able to match the retrospective temperatures with simple analysis of cycles (sun, ocean)….so I hope your dad has better arguments than that.

      Green energy appears to be a total failure at this point, so even if the warmists are right….implementation would be brutal for the economy.

      • Jon K says:

        Well there is the ocean temperatures and satellite data. We can argue over policies that may or may not be a good idea, but the science is not really up for debate anymore.

        I accept that virtually all climate scientists are not liars. I accept that those who actually have done the research and have the education know what they are talking about.

        You can always find some nut job pushing conspiracy theories and raising red herring explanations. Buying into that stuff is pathetic in my opinion.

      • Jon K says:

        Mitigation of climate change isn’t going to happen. Too many people would die if we abandoned using carbon. Denying climate change won’t prevent it from occurring. What we should be focusing on is adaption to the changes, positive and negative, that are going to happen. The best way to confront that challenge is with rational conversation. It is not with arguing about something that has been pretty well settled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: