This is hilarious. Over the past couple of days on Twitter and Facebook, I’ve seen dozens, perhaps even hundreds of meltdown tweets like this:
There’s some others far worse that are in full meltdown mode:
It even made Scientific American, who even seemed incredulous as they wrote the article:
There is so much incredulity, that Snopes had to make a page saying that it was in fact true. Screencap follows:
In September 2016, candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to appoint Myron Ebell to lead his administration’s transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ebell currently serves as the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the libertarian think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He also chairs an initiative named the Cooler Heads Coalition, which, according to Ebell’s official bio:
…comprises over two dozen non-profit groups in this country and abroad that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies.
Ebell openly declares himself to be a climate change skeptic who disputes the severity of human activity on Earth’s climate. On this point, Ebell has been extremely consistent: He argues that anthropogenic global warming, if it happens at all, is a minor issue that has been usurped by liberals to expand the federal government. He has stated in many different venues that he intends to dismantle the scientific consensus around anthropogenic global warming, as discussed in this October 23 2012 interview with PBS Frontline’s John Hockenberry:
EBELL: […] What we’re fighting is the expansion of government. And there are many pretexts for expanding government.
HOCKENBERRY: Opposing government action on climate change to defend American freedom is a perfect fit.
EBELL: We felt that if you concede the science is settled and that there’s a consensus, you cannot— the moral high ground has been ceded to the alarmists.
HOCKENBERRY: So you had to go to work and break down this consensus.
EBELL: Yes. And we did it because we believed that the consensus was phony. We believed that the so-called global warming consensus was not based on science, but was a political consensus, which included a number of scientists.
We live in interesting times.