Report: Trump To Sign EO’s That Will Make EPA Warmists Cry

We shouldn’t forget that there have already been reports of EPA bureaweenies getting weepy twice. Third time’s the charm

(The Hill) President Trump aims to sign executive orders cutting into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) climate work shortly after his nominee to lead the agency is confirmed by the Senate, according to a report.

Trump will attend a swearing-in ceremony for EPA Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt at agency headquarters after the Senate confirms Pruitt, Inside EPA reported this week.

At that event, an administration source told Inside EPA that Trump will sign executive orders related to the agency’s climate work and that they could “suck the air out of the room,” according to the report.

The official did not say how many orders Trump will sign or what they will address. But the planned event could be similar to one Trump held at the Pentagon after Defense Secretary James Mattis was sworn in.

What will they be? We can only speculate. It could be on the Clean Power Plan, or the Paris Climate accord, or any of a number of things that will make the EPA Warmists cry. Along with the rest. Get the popcorn!

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Report: Trump To Sign EO’s That Will Make EPA Warmists Cry”

  1. Jeffery says:

    It’s all part of trumpy’s schtick. Let’s all concede that trumpy is not what you would call a “deep thinker”. Of course he opposes the scientific basis of global warming. He’s scientifically illiterate, just like his party, and just like his devotees. Worse, they choose to be scientifically illiterate out of libertarian-like ideology. It’s ‘willful ignorance’ – one of the two deadly sins (‘heartless cruelty’ being the other). Two legs of the new conservative stool.

    “Facts” are just a commodity to be used. “Truth” is what trumpy says it is.

    May Allah be kind to us all.

  2. Hank_M says:

    One of the EO’s we’ve been waiting for.
    This is extremely good news.

  3. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    As Thomas Lifson states:

    Even though all life on earth is based on carbon, that basic and essential element has become the devil in the new religion popular among those Americans who regard themselves as atheists. The Gospel of Global Warming offers a version of sin and redemption far less demanding than the Judeo-Christian faith tradition. Buy an electric car (heavily subsidized by taxpayers), carry your groceries home in a hemp bag (but watch out for those meat juices soaking in and contaminating the vegetables you take home next time!) and you’re saved, without ever contemplating your actual sins against your fellow men and women and God.

    The patina of “settled science” (an oxymoron) they seize upon disguises the blind demonology that motivates them and perverts genuine science to their own spiritual imperatives.

    Yes, praise allah indeed. This is what a moslem does to his daughter when she dates a non moslem:

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9S-_Gcp3kaQ/WKPH_iWoJrI/AAAAAAABF24/A7omqAXWytY5G7IM6yhuXbC_sLDvLwQpACLcB/s1600/1ninetymilesarNHc1s6lzfwo1_1280.jpg

  4. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    BTW, her father is a “moderate moslem”, not a terrorist. Not a bomber. Just a dedicated moslem following sharia law and the word of mohammad. IOW Jeffery, your kind of immigrant. As are these:

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qIOxgpNjGMM/WKPNoUxvN4I/AAAAAAABF3k/yavKmllILzEqTjZVhXZKsuQ7qwR6ALAzgCLcB/s1600/1ninetymilesmSiDi1v0405fo1_1280-905.jpg

  5. Jeffery says:

    Even though all life on earth is based on carbon, (This is true).

    that basic and essential element has become the devil in the new religion popular among those Americans who regard themselves as atheists. (Not at all, this is just a multi-level falsehood. I bet there are many climate scientists who are not atheists. Granted, many (most?) scientists, due to training and temperament do not believe in supernatural occurrences, a cornerstone of Abrahamic religions. Carbon dioxide is neither good nor evil. It is inanimate, it is essentially harmless to humans. It’s a natural byproduct of cellular respiration – when organic compounds are efficiently metabolized (combined with oxygen, or burned) to supply energy for cells. In addition, it’s an unnatural byproduct of fossil fuel burning – where humans burn long-stored carbon forms (oil, gas, coal – underground for hundreds of millions of years) suddenly releasing gigatons of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. It is a molecule – a gas at ambient Earth temperature. It’s a gas that plays a major role in the Earth’s carbon cycle and importantly absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range. As CO2 increases, so does the heat retention of Earth. Why does Lifson ascribe supernatural characteristics to a molecule?).

    The Gospel of Global Warming offers a version of sin and redemption far less demanding than the Judeo-Christian faith tradition. (More falsehood. Wanting to slow the production of CO2 into the atmosphere no way compares to the magical character of religion, even though religious zealots like to compare their myths to science).

    Buy an electric car (heavily subsidized by taxpayers – as are fossil fuels), carry your groceries home in a hemp bag (but watch out for those meat juices soaking in and contaminating the vegetables you take home next time!) and you’re saved (No, but you are contributing less to a real existential threat).

    without ever contemplating your actual sins against your fellow men and women and God. (Absolute rubbish. Reducing one’s carbon footprint is independent of how else you may harm others. There is no evidence of god or gods.)

    The patina of “settled science” (an oxymoron) (Perhaps too fine a point for his jeremiad, but many scientific issues are considered “settled science” in practical terms although any scientific literate knows that scientific theories can be overturned).

    they seize upon disguises the blind demonology that motivates them and perverts genuine science to their own spiritual imperatives. (Utter and complete meaningless typed rubbish. Climate science is genuine science).

    The science is very clear. The Earth is warming from CO2 that me and Mr. Shitlipz pump into the atmosphere, him more than me, I bet.

    Thomas Lifshitz is ridiculing people with whom he as political differences.

  6. Ydrowningpuppies says:

    Just to clarify and not cloud the issue,


    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  7. Jeffery says:

    More BS from The Crotch Sniffer.

    Taken from the thoroughly debunked Oregon Petition. Is R2D2 still a signatory? Charles Darwin? The best is that the sponsors templated the study/article as if it was a report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The US Academy of Sciences distanced themselves from the sham.

    Real scientists understand that human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. Here’s what actual scientists conclude:

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

    Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

    Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.

    Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.

    The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

    The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

    Rather than further embarrass yourselves by denying the obvious, why not argue that you oppose any action based on ideological grounds? No need to be ashamed of your ideology.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Thanks again for the bullshit, little guy.
      Where is the proof of man made global warming?
      You’ve been asked many times and never provide it.
      Kinda like why you joined the Army but never served.
      Both mysteries, I guess.

  8. Jl says:

    Jeffery continues with his global warming BS: “The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant…..”
    See the slight of hand? If something is “likely” to happen, that means obviously it hasn’t happened yet, so there’s no “evidence” of it. It’s all just speculation. But nice try, J. There’s absolutely no evidence of “bad” climate events being solely tied to man’s CO2. In fact, the only observable effect is a greening of the earth, a positive.

  9. Deserttrek says:

    the child abusers are crying, their power is being taken from them

  10. Jeffery says:

    Facts are facts, kids. Of course you deny the truth. It’s what you do.

  11. Jl says:

    Jeffery, translated:I can’t refute anything….

  12. Jeffery says:

    j,

    You been asked before. What additional “proof” would solidify, for you, the link between atmospheric CO2 and the current warming period?

Bad Behavior has blocked 3758 access attempts in the last 7 days.