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:
Sign this petition to prevent Myron Ebell, a climate denier, from heading the EPA transition https://t.co/kQfiYyJDPX
— Kyra Prats (@KyraPrats) November 10, 2016
https://twitter.com/wantedalex101/status/796888758742175744
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.
More here: http://www.snopes.com/trump-taps-outspoken-climate-denier-to-oversee-epa-transition-team/
We live in interesting times.
The scientific consensus is now easy to fix. Now that the Church of Warming sect of the government religion of Secular Socialism has been defeated, the funding should only go to those that will provide conclusions that CO2 is meaningless. Hate to propose false science from the other direction, but too much damage has been done by clowns dressed as scientists like Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al.
Double shock if Will Happer is appointed Science Adviser, my top pick
Been a reader of WUWT for years. Frankly I’m appalled at all the shallow politics on display here recently. WUWT is a science website, I thought. Celebrating anti-science, creationism and ignorance being promoted just because it coincides with the message of WUWT; that climate change is best ameliorated if or when it gets “worse” is a poor substitute for true debate and scientific argument.
Maybe I’ll come back when all the right wingers have finished their f***-yeah posturing. Possibly 2020.
Yeah sure. Al Gore try again in 2020
So you are honestly suggesting that the CAGW hysteria has been science and not politics. You want those who have been watching and listening closely to all the: “may, maybe, could, possilby, likely, to believe that ALGORE’s documentary wasn’t science fiction, That Al’s declaration on the morning shows, that “The Debate is over” as if science plays out in a debate class, that the Science is settled, as if, any real scientist would dare suggest that a thesis should stand unchallenged because it is politically popular and has been submitted to a voting consensus? Yep. probably a good idea that you stay away from this site.
Jeef November 13, 2016 at 11:53 pm
I do love how when folks like you agree with the politics on display it’s serious thought, but when you disagree suddenly it’s “shallow politics”.
Then you thought wrong. It’s about interesting things on the planet, like say who runs the EPA …
So now in addition to being “deplorable”, all folks who disagree with you are now in favor of “anti-science, creationism and ignorance”??? How’s that working out for you? Here’s the best comment I’ve seen on your tendency …
=============================
=============================
Make it 2060, there’s a good chap, I’ll be gone by then …
w.
So will I! (Be gone by then).
Clear who the cheerleaders are! Good on you Willis.