āPruitt has expressed skepticism of climate change, writing earlier this year that āscientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.āā
That isnāt skepticism, that is lying.
Climate change is not something you believe āinā ā like Santa Claus.
I agree. The headline should say āwonāt say if EPA nominee rejects science.ā
It all comes down to whether youāre a sociopath by ideology, caring only for your own benefit no matter how cruelly it hurts others, or you see humanity and all of nature as interdependent. You believe in more power for the already powerful, or you believe in fair, equitable treatment based on long agreed-upon rules. Self-interest, or enlightened self-interest. Thatās what weāre deciding right now and a lot of us are deciding wrong.
HoW caN you Not doubt SciencE as all the S ientists havEbrun amoK?
Oh, FYI, GLAAD and NAMBLA forced the color scheme on Cheerios for the above packaging. Pass it alongā¦
I would love to see an interview in which these Trump reps are asked for some kind of detail. āCan you give us some examples of these onerous, burdensome regulations that kill business and donāt actually help to keep our air and water clean?ā They go on ānewsā shows and blah blah blather about job-killing regulations but are never asked specifically which regulations they intend to abolish. Iād also like to see someone ask them, āDo you think the residents of Flint, Michigan, believe we need fewer regulations on clean air and water?ā
Meanwhile, back on Planet USSRofAā¦
Yep. I ābelieveā in climate change in the same way I ābelieveā the sun will rise this morning.
Ah Jason Miller with the face of used car sales man hasnāt quite got the pleasant denial answer down like Spicer. And may I add he has a great face for the written word media.
Flip the premise - a true journalist should state that āGlobal climate change is settle science, just as the earth rotating around the sun is settled science despite ignorant people believing otherwise for centuries. What actions, if any, will these nominees do to reverse the catastrophic affects of global climate change? Please be specific.ā
All
Why is he sacred of saying what they campaigned on?
Miller, a man who was born without a chin thus he grows a shitty goatee to hide it.
I see Copernicus suckered you, too.
āā¦wonāt say if EPA nominee rejects sound, settled climate science because of stupidity or willful ignorance; or purposely rejects and belittles climate science in order to cater to the will of corporate America in order to help maintain and increase profits for as long as possible, making the cost of eventually addressing climate change in a serious manner much more expensive and more difficult to have timely, positive effects.ā
Morning Edition interviewed Rand Paul yesterday. He gave the example of restricting the building of a cattle pond.
[NPR host David] GREENE: Whatās one regulation that would give people an idea of what youāre talking about, a single regulation that you can really point to and you think limits jobs?
PAUL: Thereās a regulation called Waters of the U.S. There was a cattle rancher, Andy Johnson, out in Fort Bridger, Wyo. He was fined $37,000 a day for building a cattle pond that he had a local permit for. You should not have to get a federal permit to build a cattle pond. This is the kind of thing that has kind of run amok in our country is the federal government trying to regulate individual local issues like land use.
Iām not a farmerā¦but does that project really employ that many people? If a farmer could build one, and presumably then increase their herd, would that increase farmhand help? (As Paul noted just after the question, āpeople who live in Hollywoodāā¦presumably folks like me, though Iām not in CAā¦just donāt care much about cattle ponds, so maybe Iām missing their yuuuuge economic impact.)
Anyway, yes, I would love to hear Republicans asked what regulations have been killing jobs (or how Obamacare has done so), when weāve had, what, 70+ months of uninterrupted job growth, as well as the fact that Obama should go down as the president with the 3rd highest private sector job growth on record (at least in the past 50 yrs)? On a related note, it just kills meā¦as Iām sure it does the Obama adminā¦that the next president will get to enjoy healthy job growth for a while, if demographics are to be believed. Get ready for how Trump will be labeled the next Reagan! (Even though, ironically, Reagan had the highest rate of increase of public sector jobs of recent presidents, while Obama had the lowest, thanks to our saboteurs-in-residence, the Republican Partyā¦)
Interesting example, because I was just reading that agricultural methane is a big deal for global warming. One thing Reagan was right about, I guess;)