• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniers

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,543
Reaction score
19,319
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Associated Press

Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniers
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and promote Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency.


John Konkus, EPA’s deputy associate administrator for public affairs, repeatedly reached out to senior staffers at the Heartland Institute, according to the emails.


“If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent,” Konkus wrote to then-Heartland president Joseph Bast in May 2017, seeking suggestions on scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards.

COMMENT:-
It looks like the EPA is finally getting down to doing some independent and unbiased research on climate change. At least as independent and unbiased as the research that the cigarette companies did on tobacco.​
 
I equate climate change believers with those that believed that we would be 10 years into the next ice-age by now.. ;)

Same science, different results, I guess. Go ask Canadian's how they feel about their government's new carbon taxes.. ;)


Tim-
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the Associated Press

Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniers
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and promote Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency.


John Konkus, EPA’s deputy associate administrator for public affairs, repeatedly reached out to senior staffers at the Heartland Institute, according to the emails.


“If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent,” Konkus wrote to then-Heartland president Joseph Bast in May 2017, seeking suggestions on scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards.

COMMENT:-
It looks like the EPA is finally getting down to doing some independent and unbiased research on climate change. At least as independent and unbiased as the research that the cigarette companies did on tobacco.​
Click to expand...

Who would you suggest they ask for, "scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards"?
The EPA is moving to a more transparent way of doing scientific research, everyone should be applauding the move.
We will get better regulations, when they are based on provable repeatable science.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the Associated Press

Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniers
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and promote Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency.


John Konkus, EPA’s deputy associate administrator for public affairs, repeatedly reached out to senior staffers at the Heartland Institute, according to the emails.


“If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent,” Konkus wrote to then-Heartland president Joseph Bast in May 2017, seeking suggestions on scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards.

COMMENT:-
It looks like the EPA is finally getting down to doing some independent and unbiased research on climate change. At least as independent and unbiased as the research that the cigarette companies did on tobacco.​
Click to expand...



Was it ever a secret that the Trump administration doesn't believe the hype of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)? The Trump EPA working on messaging with those who don't agree with CAGW is no different than the Obama administration working on messaging with the Sierra Club or Greenpeace.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Climate-change deniers = It looks like the EPA is finally getting down to doing some independent and unbiased research on climate change. At least as independent and unbiased as the research that the cigarette companies did on tobacco.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one that caught that?
 
Hicup said:
I equate climate change believers with those that believed that we would be 10 years into the next ice-age by now.. ;)

Same science, different results, I guess. Go ask Canadian's how they feel about their government's new carbon taxes.. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Then you simply do not know anything. Climate change is settled science, with 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. The only ones that do not accept the science are a group of conservatives in the U.S. -- 500 years ago, they'd be denying the Earth was round.
 
jmotivator said:
Was it ever a secret that the Trump administration doesn't believe the hype of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)? The Trump EPA working on messaging with those who don't agree with CAGW is no different than the Obama administration working on messaging with the Sierra Club or Greenpeace.
Click to expand...
What there is no secret about is that Scott Pruitt is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, that has an interest in denying that their product is the cause of climate change.
 
Hicup said:
I equate climate change believers with those that believed that we would be 10 years into the next ice-age by now.. ;)

Same science, different results, I guess.
Click to expand...

The two scientists that wrote that global cooling paper back in the 70s nearly lost their jobs. They were forced to retract their paper, and their status in the scientific community went into the toilet.

DARPA, a few years later, did climate research, and that was the start of that era of climate science. It was quite expensive back then, so it's not surprising that the only people that did it worked for government or Big Oil (the Big Oil guys found the same thing).

I've followed climate science since the early 80s. They've come a long way, but the work reinforces what DARPA found in the the 70s.

Same science, same results.
 
MTAtech said:
What there is no secret about is that Scott Pruitt is a shill for the fossil fuel industry, that has an interest in denying that their product is the cause of climate change.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah and more blah. %CAGW prophet% is a shill for %Government funding and Renewables% and on and on.

Try being interesting next time.
 
jmotivator said:
Blah, blah and more blah. %CAGW prophet% is a shill for %Government funding and Renewables% and on and on.

Try being interesting next time.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your eloquent reply.
 
late said:
The two scientists that wrote that global cooling paper back in the 70s nearly lost their jobs. They were forced to retract their paper, and their status in the scientific community went into the toilet.

DARPA, a few years later, did climate research, and that was the start of that era of climate science. It was quite expensive back then, so it's not surprising that the only people that did it worked for government or Big Oil (the Big Oil guys found the same thing).

I've followed climate science since the early 80s. They've come a long way, but the work reinforces what DARPA found in the the 70s.

Same science, same results.
Click to expand...

No, the consensus was that they had no way to predict climate change in one direction or the other, has it come a long way? Nope, but there's certainly a lot more money involved and governments with a very specific interest in wanting it to be so. Many articles have come out showing the flaw in the data collection and outright manipulation of the data.. But all that aside, common sense and a basic understanding of previous global climate is all one needs to understand that planets, all by themselves, change their climates, and the truth is that we have zero understanding as to why that may be.. But go on with your climate change religion..

It's a free country!

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
No, the consensus was that they had no way to predict climate change in one direction or the other, has it come a long way?
Click to expand...

At that time, this was uber-expensive, cutting edge research. It was a decade ahead of what could be done outside secret, big budget government research. Except for secret Big Oil research, which found the same thing.

So the results were replicated way back then.

Now there is consensus, based on decades of research. Same science, same result..

Look at the bright side, if Big Oil isn't paying you, you can (in theory) learn.
 
longview said:
Who would you suggest they ask for, "scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards"?
The EPA is moving to a more transparent way of doing scientific research, everyone should be applauding the move.
We will get better regulations, when they are based on provable repeatable science.
Click to expand...

Why then, has the transparent EPA scrubbed mention of global warming and climate change from their websites?
 
Nickyjo said:
Why then, has the transparent EPA scrubbed mention of global warming and climate change from their websites?
Click to expand...

Because Mr. Trump doesn't want any government money spent on "Fake Science".
 
Nickyjo said:
Why then, has the transparent EPA scrubbed mention of global warming and climate change from their websites?
Click to expand...
Consider that since the EPA has not been forth coming on the source material used to establish AGW, perhaps at least limiting the alarmist terms
will allow them to maintain a shred of their dignity.
Also Global warming and climate change are not the real terms it is Anthropogenic Global Warming,
and catastrophic climate change, if Humans cannot be blamed, who can be taxed?
 
longview said:
Consider that since the EPA has not been forth coming on the source material used to establish AGW, perhaps at least limiting the alarmist terms
will allow them to maintain a shred of their dignity.
Also Global warming and climate change are not the real terms it is Anthropogenic Global Warming,
and catastrophic climate change, if Humans cannot be blamed, who can be taxed?
Click to expand...

It seems that the scientists involved were not happy about this. How is the notion AGW alarmist any more than concerns about vehicle emissions, tobacco, etc.? Prove that smoking and emissions are harmless and regulations will change. Counter the bad info you see with good info and policies will change: today the part of the GOP that accepts the science, then NASA, then the NOAA, tomorrow the democrats and the world.
 
Nickyjo said:
It seems that the scientists involved were not happy about this. How is the notion AGW alarmist any more than concerns about vehicle emissions, tobacco, etc.? Prove that smoking and emissions are harmless and regulations will change. Counter the bad info you see with good info and policies will change: today the part of the GOP that accepts the science, then NASA, then the NOAA, tomorrow the democrats and the world.
Click to expand...
Do the blinders you ware hurt much?
Seriously Science can establish a direct cause and effect between non catalytic converter emissions and smog,
It can also show a direct cause and effect relationship between smoking and lower hemoglobin efficiency.
Not only can both be shown, both effects can be demonstrated in repeatable laboratory experiments.
The same can not be said for AGW as defined by the IPCC.
 
MTAtech said:
...with 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. The only ones that do not accept the science are a group of conservatives in the U.S. -- 500 years ago, they'd be denying the Earth was round.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a consensus among scientists the the world was flat? BOOM!
 
Hicup said:
I equate climate change believers with those that believed that we would be 10 years into the next ice-age by now.. ;)

Same science, different results, I guess. Go ask Canadian's how they feel about their government's new carbon taxes.. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

I live in Canada, they seem pretty ok with it. And are really pissed off at Trump and Pruitt for how they are dismantling the EPA, and really do I need to go on. We've all heard the spiel right? We all know what Trump and Pruitt are doing.

Anyway. No Trump supporter should ever feel the need to invoke Canada to defend their position. You will be laughed at, in both english and french.
 
Hicup said:
I equate climate change believers with those that believed that we would be 10 years into the next ice-age by now.. ;)
Same science, different results, I guess. Go ask Canadian's how they feel about their government's new carbon taxes.. ;)
Tim-
Click to expand...

There is molten iron at the core of this planet and a large nuclear fusion reactor hurling immense amounts of heat and radiation at us constantly, for billions of years. Oh, but the left claims it's us. And it's been settled. LOL! These people are hilarious.
 
Anthony60 said:
Wasn't there a consensus among scientists the the world was flat? BOOM!
Click to expand...
No, the consensus was among religious leaders. Scientists, not so much.

Pythagoras proposed that the Earth was round in 500 B.C. -- along with Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and others.
 
Anthony60 said:
Wasn't there a consensus among scientists the the world was flat? BOOM!
Click to expand...

Aristotle (among many others) figured out that the Earth was round, and Eratosthenes even managed to measure the circumference of the Earth in 240 BCE.
 
MTAtech said:
No, the consensus was among religious leaders. Scientists, not so much.

Pythagoras proposed that the Earth was round in 500 B.C. -- along with Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler and others.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are saying that the majority isn't always correct, like the so called "97%" of scientists today. Just like I was saying in my post.
 
Anthony60 said:
Ah, so you are saying that the majority isn't always correct, like the so called "97%" of scientists today. Just like I was saying in my post.
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like you understood his post.

You are of course able to believe whatever you want if you distrust science. You can believe in invisible pink unicorns if you like, but it's not a sound footing for public policy.

GW deniers only have one goal, and it's not to find the truth - it's to disprove global warming. There is no scientific discipline behind global warming denial. Climate scientists seek the best description of reality and HGW is the best that we have so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom