Washington Post Very Concerned About A Potential Government Wide Questioning Of “Climate Science” Or Something

This Washington Post article is less about ‘climate change’ than about shoddy journalism using zero named sources – they’re all anonymous – to have a conniption fit about the government questioning the “consensus” of climate science. But, hey, wait till we get the money quote

EPA chief pushing governmentwide effort to question climate change science

The Trump administration is debating whether to launch a governmentwide effort to question the science of climate change, an effort that critics say is an attempt to undermine the long-established consensus human activity is fueling the Earth’s rising temperatures.

The move, driven by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, has sparked a debate among top Trump administration officials over whether to pursue such a strategy.

A senior White House official, who asked for anonymity because no final decision has been made, said that while Pruitt has expressed interest in the idea, “there are no formal plans within the administration to do anything about it at this time.”

Consensus is not science, and the senior official is probably a cook for all we know.

But officials are discussing whether the initiative would stretch across numerous federal agencies that rely on such science, according to multiple Trump administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement has been made.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who once described the science behind human-caused climate change as a “contrived phony mess,” also is involved in the effort, two officials said.

Writers Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis throw in a few names in an attempt to make this all look legitimate, instead of a whisper campaign and journalism that looks more like something from a conspiracy theory website. We’ve already seen the huge number of articles that have turned out to be false or wrong. How do we trust something based 100% on anonymous sources?

Here’s the money quote

The idea, according to one senior administration official, is “to get other federal agencies involved in this exercise on the state of climate science” to examine “what we know, where there are holes, and what we actually don’t know.”

OH MY GOD!!!!!! They might do a scientific investigation into what we do and don’t know!!!!!!! Science doesn’t work this way!!!! Science is all about declaring a belief, manufacturing data to support it, and then saying the science is settled!!!! Don’t these people know that that is the Scientific Method? That science is never questioned? We’re doooooooomed!!!!! Because consensus science has never been proven wrong!!!!

A plethora of scientific assessments over the years have concluded that human activity — such as the burning of fossil fuels — is driving climate change, and it poses grave risks both to the environment and to human health. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it is “extremely likely” that, since the 1950s, humans and their greenhouse gas emissions have been the “dominant cause” of the planet’s warming trend.

And a plethora of assessments have stated that human activity is not the dominant cause. Everyone knew that frogs gave you warts, until someone did Science. Everyone knew that world was flat, until someone questioned the science. Cracking your knuckles doesn’t give you arthritis. Lightning does strike twice. Even Einstein has had his theories questioned, and even superceded. And Newtonian Gravity? Yes, that was questioned, and superceded by general relativity.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

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

23 Responses to “Washington Post Very Concerned About A Potential Government Wide Questioning Of “Climate Science” Or Something”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Consensus is not science, and the senior official is probably a cook for all we know.

    Nor are scientific conclusions determined by political committee, but rather, through scientific evidence as evaluated by experts in the field. If the Trump Administration convened a blue-ribbon panel of experts in the field, but then again, such experts have already been convened repeatedly in the U.S. (and the world).

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

    American Astronomical Society: The American Geophysical Union (AGU) notes that human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is significantly contributing to the warming of the global climate.

    American Geophysical Union: Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.

    American Institute of Physics: Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate.

    American Meteorological Society: Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.

    American Physical Society: Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe.

    American Statistical Association: The American Statistical Association (ASA) recently convened a workshop of leading atmospheric scientists and statisticians involved in climate change research.

    Geological Society of America: Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes.

    National Academy of Sciences: The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Copy and paste is fun.

      As of August 2015, 31,487 scientists, including 3,805 with degrees in atmospheric, earth, or environmental science and 9,029 Ph.D.’s in varying scientific fields, have signed a petition stating:
      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.

      • Zachriel says:

        The list has no verification process. Names include Charles Darwin.

      • Jeffery says:

        Here’s some copy and paste:

        So only 0.1% of the individuals on the list of over 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology.

        The exact number is 39 climatologists.

        Frederick Seitz, in an open letter inviting scientists to sign the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s global warming petition, called for the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The letter was accompanied by a 12-page article on climate change which followed a style and format nearly identical to that of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a scientific journal, even including a date of publication (“October 26”) and volume number (“Vol. 13: 149–164 1999”), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. In response the United States National Academy of Sciences took what the New York Times called “the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one [of] its former presidents.” The NAS also made it clear that “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

        The fake paper included was authored by the oft debunked, disgraced and discredited part-time researcher Willie Soon (with other even less qualified contributors).

        Shortly before his 1979 retirement from Rockefeller University, Seitz began working as a permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company… academic studies of tobacco industry influence concluded that Seitz, who helped allocate $45m of Reynolds’ research funding, “played a key role… in helping the tobacco industry produce uncertainty concerning the health impacts of smoking.” … According to a tobacco industry memo from 1989, Seitz was described by an employee of Philip Morris International as “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice”.

        The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

        Seitz is the best the Petition Project has to offer. So you really want to start digging into the detritus?

        Randomly selected: Neil R. Smoots, Bronislaw Smura, PhD, Robert Edwin Smylie, Robert L. Smyre, Robert C. Smythe, Cloyd Arten Snavely

        Neil R. Smoots – Mech Engr, United Launch Alliance
        Bronislaw Smura (deceased 2009) – Chemist, Allied Chemical
        Robert Edwin Smylie – NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
        Robert L. Smyre – uncertain relevance
        Robert C. Smythe (deceased 2004) – Elect Engr, Piezo Technologies
        Cloyd Arten Snavely – (deceased 2007) – Metallurg Engr, Battelle (defense)

        No climatologists there. That’s likely more verification than the entire bogus Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine conducted.

  2. david7134 says:

    Z,
    I can list more organizations than that which says cholesterol causes heart disease, yet it has nothing to do with any disease and never did. Yet the literature is full of false reports about the issue. It resulted in decades of worthless treatment of a condition that did not exist while allowing millions to die from the real cause of CV disease. Now, why did those organizations do that? MONEY.

    • Zachriel says:

      Um, the issue wasn’t diet, nor did we suggest a political committee to make a determination.

      • david7134 says:

        I know it is hard to understand, you do seem to have that problem, but the scientific issue of cholesterol in the blood is the exact same charade as that of climate science.

  3. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Do you really believe that plasma cholesterol levels are unrelated to CV disease?

    • david7134 says:

      Absolutely, Jeff, but it would do zero good to take the time to enlighten a fool. I already told you I have you a gift, if you truly develop drugs.

  4. Jl says:

    Do you really believe ulcers are caused by food, as was the medical consensus years ago?

  5. Jl says:

    Greenhouse gasses! Run for your lives!

  6. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You should be a man and state your folk hypothesis. Let me help. That the link between plasma cholesterol and heart disease is being refined proves that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming is a hoax.

    • david7134 says:

      Good try Jeff, you think that you can bring me out in a conversation with a fool. But, you are so low on the spectrum that nothing you say or do matters.

  7. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You don’t even realize that our questions are meant to mock you. Of course, we don’t expect coherent answers from the likes of you.

    But you were the buffoon who linked plasma cholesterol to climate change, not us. We were hoping to enjoy your explanation.

  8. Jl says:

    Oh, no-more “consensus” talk. As said, the “we have more guys on our side so we win argument.” How very scientific

  9. Jl says:

    Plus always hilarious to hear that this “society” or this “organization” supports whatever. What one should do, if smart, is to research if the, say, Geological Society of America allows all its members to vote on a subject like this or is it just the governing body that votes. If all members vote, does 51% or more voting for a subject then mean the whole body supports it? That could of course show a whole different result that what we’re seen above.

  10. Jeffery says:

    j,

    The argument is actually that almost ALL the experts in the area are persuaded by the evidence that man’s generation of CO2 by burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm. Right-wing US politicians, their ignorant minions and self-serving fossil fuel interests comprise the opposition.

    Why have generals with war experience lead the armed forces? Why not follow the advice of conservapundits?

    Why take the advice of doctors regarding smoking? Why not follow the advice of the tobacco companies?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The argument is actually that almost ALL the experts in the area are persuaded

      …that it will be an early night for Donald Trump.

      So much for “almost ALL the experts”.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6541 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: