SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Scott Pruitt sued the EPA more than a dozen times before he was named as the agency's head this year. (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr/cc)
As Climate Threats Mount, Experts Say No Time Left for Deceitful "Debate"
"The science is clear: we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to a 100% clean energy economy"
Jul 03, 2017
As new and worrying evidence of global warming's destructive impacts mount around the globe, climate experts are saying efforts by the Trump administration's EPA chief to discredit decades of climate science research should be seen as a deceitful--and dangerous--tactic.
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator who sued the agency more than a dozen times before President Donald Trump nominated him to lead it, "has expressed interest in the idea of formally challenging the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet" according to reports by the Washington Post.
"What the American people deserve is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2," said Pruitt in a recent interview with Breitbart.
"Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies--there's no time left for debate."--Jenny Marienau, 350.org
In the interview Pruitt said he would support a "red team-blue team" exercise to formally question the scientific consensus. In that scenario, a so-called "red team" aligned with Pruitt's beliefs would critique the position of a "blue team" representing the scientific consensus. The debate would then be evaluated by a commission, the members of which are unclear.
Scientists argue that this discussion has already taken place.
The activism network 350.org said, "Pruitt continues to push the same playbook of delay and deceit that the fossil fuel industry has been peddling for decades...But the science is clear: we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to a 100% clean energy economy that works for all of us. It's our only shot at a safe and livable planet. Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies -- there's no time left for debate."
Pruitt's proposal is just his latest statement calling into question climate scientists' belief that humans must limit the amount of greenhouse gases they release into the atmosphere, in order to slow or reverse the affects of climate change.
In March, Pruitt said in an interview with CNBC, "There's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of human activity], so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Contrary to Pruitt's belief that there is widespread dissent about climate change, NASA finds that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Pruitt is pushing the red team-blue team idea as many scientists are ramping up their warnings about the impact of climate change on the earth.
The physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking said on Monday that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord, could do permanent damage to the planet.
"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible," he said. "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid."
Scientists also said Monday that a sheet of ice the size of Delaware could be weeks away from breaking off of Antarctica. The breaking of the Larsen C ice shelf could be a sign that Antarctica is melting faster than expected.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
As new and worrying evidence of global warming's destructive impacts mount around the globe, climate experts are saying efforts by the Trump administration's EPA chief to discredit decades of climate science research should be seen as a deceitful--and dangerous--tactic.
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator who sued the agency more than a dozen times before President Donald Trump nominated him to lead it, "has expressed interest in the idea of formally challenging the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet" according to reports by the Washington Post.
"What the American people deserve is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2," said Pruitt in a recent interview with Breitbart.
"Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies--there's no time left for debate."--Jenny Marienau, 350.org
In the interview Pruitt said he would support a "red team-blue team" exercise to formally question the scientific consensus. In that scenario, a so-called "red team" aligned with Pruitt's beliefs would critique the position of a "blue team" representing the scientific consensus. The debate would then be evaluated by a commission, the members of which are unclear.
Scientists argue that this discussion has already taken place.
The activism network 350.org said, "Pruitt continues to push the same playbook of delay and deceit that the fossil fuel industry has been peddling for decades...But the science is clear: we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to a 100% clean energy economy that works for all of us. It's our only shot at a safe and livable planet. Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies -- there's no time left for debate."
Pruitt's proposal is just his latest statement calling into question climate scientists' belief that humans must limit the amount of greenhouse gases they release into the atmosphere, in order to slow or reverse the affects of climate change.
In March, Pruitt said in an interview with CNBC, "There's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of human activity], so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Contrary to Pruitt's belief that there is widespread dissent about climate change, NASA finds that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Pruitt is pushing the red team-blue team idea as many scientists are ramping up their warnings about the impact of climate change on the earth.
The physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking said on Monday that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord, could do permanent damage to the planet.
"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible," he said. "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid."
Scientists also said Monday that a sheet of ice the size of Delaware could be weeks away from breaking off of Antarctica. The breaking of the Larsen C ice shelf could be a sign that Antarctica is melting faster than expected.
As new and worrying evidence of global warming's destructive impacts mount around the globe, climate experts are saying efforts by the Trump administration's EPA chief to discredit decades of climate science research should be seen as a deceitful--and dangerous--tactic.
Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator who sued the agency more than a dozen times before President Donald Trump nominated him to lead it, "has expressed interest in the idea of formally challenging the scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet" according to reports by the Washington Post.
"What the American people deserve is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2," said Pruitt in a recent interview with Breitbart.
"Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies--there's no time left for debate."--Jenny Marienau, 350.org
In the interview Pruitt said he would support a "red team-blue team" exercise to formally question the scientific consensus. In that scenario, a so-called "red team" aligned with Pruitt's beliefs would critique the position of a "blue team" representing the scientific consensus. The debate would then be evaluated by a commission, the members of which are unclear.
Scientists argue that this discussion has already taken place.
The activism network 350.org said, "Pruitt continues to push the same playbook of delay and deceit that the fossil fuel industry has been peddling for decades...But the science is clear: we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transition to a 100% clean energy economy that works for all of us. It's our only shot at a safe and livable planet. Our communities are already bearing the brunt of the fossil fuel industry's lies -- there's no time left for debate."
Pruitt's proposal is just his latest statement calling into question climate scientists' belief that humans must limit the amount of greenhouse gases they release into the atmosphere, in order to slow or reverse the affects of climate change.
In March, Pruitt said in an interview with CNBC, "There's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of human activity], so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Contrary to Pruitt's belief that there is widespread dissent about climate change, NASA finds that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Pruitt is pushing the red team-blue team idea as many scientists are ramping up their warnings about the impact of climate change on the earth.
The physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking said on Monday that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord, could do permanent damage to the planet.
"We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible," he said. "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid."
Scientists also said Monday that a sheet of ice the size of Delaware could be weeks away from breaking off of Antarctica. The breaking of the Larsen C ice shelf could be a sign that Antarctica is melting faster than expected.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.