Pruitt blasts Europe, Merkel for ‘hypocrisy’ on climate

From Politico

“I just think the hypocrisy runs rampant,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said of European critics of the Trump administration.

By Andrew Restuccia

07/12/2017 07:02 PM EDT

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed European critics of President Donald Trump’s climate policies as hypocrites on Wednesday, while chastising German Chancellor Angela Merkel for phasing out her country’s nuclear power plants.

“I just think the hypocrisy runs rampant,” Pruitt said in an interview with POLITICO. “To look at us as a nation and say, ‘You all need to do more’ in light of what we’ve done in leading with innovation and technology — the hypocrisy is palpable in those areas.”

Story Continued Below

Pruitt mentioned Merkel by name, urging the public to press her on the issue. If reducing carbon dioxide emissions “is so important to you, Madam Chancellor, why are you getting rid of nuclear? Because last time I checked, it’s pretty clean on CO2,” he said.

Merkel is one of the most vocal public defenders of the Paris climate change agreement, the 2015 pact that Trump said last month he intends to leave. Merkel hosted the recent G-20 summit of the world’s wealthiest economies, where the United States was the only country not to throw its support behind the deal. At the same time, Germany announced in 2000 it would phase out nuclear power, a shift that Merkel accelerated after the 2011 nuclear disaster in Japan.

Pruitt repeated his criticism of the Paris deal, casting doubt on whether the United States would remain part of the climate agreement even if the Trump administration rewrites former President Barack Obama’s aggressive plan to cut U.S. emissions. When Trump announced the withdrawal June 1, he held out the possibility of negotiating to “re-enter” the accord “on terms that are fair to the United States.”

Pruitt argued that the United States has shown it can address climate change without being bound to an international agreement. He noted that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined since President George W. Bush decided in 2001 to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.

 

“What we ought to be focused upon in my view is exporting innovation and technology to nations like China, like India, to help them with respect to their power grid,” he said.

Pruitt said the United States will continue to engage with the international community on climate change, but he called the Paris deal “pure symbolism,” adding, “It was a bumper sticker.

“Engagement is unquestioned. We’re going to continue to engage,” he said. “But we have led with action.”

Still, Pruitt continued to raise concerns that remaining in the Paris deal could create legal complications as the administration tries to unravel Obama’s domestic climate regulations, arguing that outside groups could seek to hold the U.S. to its pledges in court. “Why would you hold yourself out to that type of legal liability?” he said.

During the administration’s monthslong debate over Paris, Pruitt and other opponents of the agreement made that argument behind the scenes, clashing with other Trump advisers who believed those legal fears were unfounded. Pruitt, along with Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon, was the most forceful advocate of ending U.S. participation in the Paris deal.

Pruitt bristled at the phrase “climate denier,” a description that his critics have often applied to him in light of his repeated statements disputing scientific conclusions about the large role humans play in warming the planet.

“What does it even mean? That’s what I think about it. I deny the climate? Really? Wow, OK. That’s crazy, in my view,” he said.

Pruitt reiterated his position that the climate is warming and humans contribute to that, but “the ability to measure with precision the human contribution to warming is something that’s very challenging to do.”

Read the full article here.

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “Pruitt blasts Europe, Merkel for ‘hypocrisy’ on climate

    • What wonderful change of pace as compared to a single person unilaterally commiting an entire country of 300+ million people to something they did not approve of domestically through due process via our elected representation.

      Queue up Candy Man!

    • Liberals of course won’t under stand. I think they only understand gobbledegook. Prime example is the “Affordable Care Act”.

      • Exactly! I heard the other day about how so many people would lose insurance under the Rep plan.. Eff that! Who cares about insurance if the premiums, deductibles and the cost of the healthcare are going up?

  1. Spot on! Thank goodness for common sense & it’s a relief to see this position stated so emphatically by Pruitt, especially after reports that President Trump might be softening his position during his trip to Paris. No doubt, that “virtue signaller extraordinaire” Macron has been bugging him relentlessly. I still have faith that Trump will stick with his plan but it’s good to hear any and all confirmation of the viewpoint inside his administration!

    • Note how it is mentioned that there are some opposed “…clashing with other Trump advisers who believed those legal fears were unfounded…”. I wonder who that might be Ivanka and Jared, possibly? That is a weak spot in Trump’s administration. Right from the beginning these two were pushing for compliance with Paris. I have always wondered if there is a financial reason for their persistent such as large family investments on Jared’s side of the family. Or even some invested friends of Jared who have requested favor. I just don’t see the two of them as being wild eyed liberal types who faithfully believe in CAGW. There has to be a secondary motivation, imo.

      • Goldminor: Relax, it is just the usual snowflake propaganda, of no truth. Fathers know when to stop humouring their daughters…..

      • I think that the pressure is coming from Jared, specifically. I don’t picture Ivanka as a snowflake, after being raised by a man like D Trump. So that raises the question in me as to why the two of them have pushed for Paris.

        Also, there is Tillerson who I never liked from the get go. I was unhappy to see him taken on as SoS. He also supports some of the green madness for some strange reason. I believe that is related to money making schemes which consist of Exxon seeing an opportunity to plug into the government piggy bank.

      • “after being raised by a man like D Trump.”

        You are only 1/2 right goldminor, don’t forget Ivanka has a mother.

      • True enough, but I would compare D Trump to my father, who did his best to ensure that his children’s world view understood that Republican was the right way of thinking. Of course that only went so far, as several of my sisters are complete Democrat supporters in all matters.

        Yet with the obvious closeness between Ivanka and father, one would think that she would lean heavily conservative in her values. That is why I think that Jared is the key for some reason, and that reason would more that likely be monetary, imo.

      • I tend to discount any report claiming to represent what Ivanka Trump’s opinions are on the environment, as thus far, all the coverage has been unidentified friends of hers, or friends of friends, purportedly knowing what her opinions are. She obviously has access to the press herself, and has yet to do any commentary on environmental issues. It is still on the level of gossip.

      • True enough, neither of them have publicly stated what they think of the Paris Agreement. Tillerson, on the other hand, has made his thoughts clear, unfortunately.

    • Trump is softening his position? He can’t win. If he’s nice and diplomatic, he’s softening and his supporters go crazy (even if no action follows—words are all it takes, it seems). If he’s firm and unbending, the media calls him all kinds of nasty names for not being “agreeable”. Trump is the man whose supporters and opponents both apparently have no belief in whatsoever.

    • I’m not betting money either way. That said, the refugee crisis could balloon into real nastiness. link For that reason alone I’m cheering for Merkel and hoping that she will moderate her position wrt refugees.

      Ancient Rome had a refugee problem and it didn’t end well. link

      It’s a story shockingly similar to what’s happening in Europe right now—and it should serve as a cautionary tale. link

      • @commieBob
        The rather amazing aspect to me of the Guardian piece you linked to was the number of comments recognizing the dangers to their culture/society of this mass migration to the West. Most Guardian readers used to be of the view that the more immigrants the better, irrespective of calibre. Could the tide be slowly turning?

      • alexei July 14, 2017 at 10:07 pm

        … Could the tide be slowly turning?

        You wouldn’t know it from the polling numbers for the general population. link Between 1994 and 2015 American attitudes on immigration seem to be more positive.

        I think it’s a matter of whose ox is gored. This link says poorer voters’ worries about immigration fuelled the Brexit vote. Similarly, the most negative European attitudes on immigration are in Greece and Italy. Both those countries are taking the brunt of the illegal migration.

        It’s complicated. You can get huge differences in polls just by making seemingly small changes to the questions asked.

        People’s attitudes are more nuanced than they are given credit for.

      • Went to Naples the other day, and you could not go out at night. Our 5-star hotel was surrounded by a run down ghetto-land with every corner with a pack of feral imnigrants, looking menacing. You could only leave the hotel by taxi. Why would anyone want to do that to their country??

        Going to the tourist spots in Paris is much the same. Tuck away any valluables, as the aggressive pickpocket gangs will surround you and strip you bare. And don’t try buying trinkets from the street-sellers, because the guy behind will be rifling your bag. And never wear a backpack, or it will be empty very soon. Why would anyone want to do that to their country??

        R

      • ralfellis askith:

        Why would anyone want to do that to their country??

        I guess the simple answer is that the persons in question have never been nurtured by parents, guardians, relatives or peers to have an emotional attachment consisting of a bond, an appreciation, love, honor, duty, respect, etc., for the country that they are claiming citizenship of, therefore the dastardly actions of the immigrant crowd matters not a twit to them as long as they remain completed isolated from any up-close and personal contact with said.

        The “social pendulum” has done swung too far off-center to the “left” to ever swing back without a lot of pain, hardship and destruction due to acts of anarchy.

    • Merkel ist just flexibel. She has antennas to sense what the public thinks. If the common people have an idea, she will follow it. This is the real idea of an Einheitspartei.

      In the DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) we had the SED (Sozialistische Deutsche Einheits-Patei). Merkel created the marvel to have sonthing like this even at the Center-Right CDU (Christian Democratic Union).

  2. Hypocrisy is a fair point but does it validate the underlying AGW fraud claims at the same time?

    The fraud is worse then the hypocrisy so talking in terms of AGW talking points is counter productive. The hypocrisy has no impact on climate either. Time to acknowledge that as policy come what may.

    • Exactly. It’s worrying that Mr Pruitt and Trump are not coming out saying the whole thing is a charade. They seem to agree there is a problem, only saying they disagree on the ways to solve it.

      • “It’s worrying that Mr Pruitt and Trump are not coming out saying the whole thing is a charade.”

        It might not be . . safe, at this point. Imperiling the world can be a pretty potent argument for . . regime change, if you catch my drift . .

      • Not all scientists say the whole thing is a charade. Many acknowledge humans do have an effect. It seems unlikely that humans have no effect, beings that there are billions of us and we’re pretty creative at using resources. It’s also unscientific. We don’t know how climate works. How can we definitively say CO2 has NO effect on climate? Only a nonscientist says that. A scientist says it might, but it has not been proven and if it does have an effect, how much.

      • BernardP July 14, 2017 at 6:31 pm
        It may be they consider there’s no real benefit in saying that at the moment. Their policies now are about the same as they would be had they ‘come out’, so in policy terms there’s no difference, hence they may as well keep their powder dry. It may come in handy further down the line.

      • As Mr Knight indicated, there are significant political dangers to going “Full Monty”, with little upside.
        It was pointed out below that the the American public seems incapable of understanding the nuances of health care vs health insurance. The Dems, MSM and the entrenched NGO green orgs would demagogue an explicit pushback on the science relentlessly.
        The better strategy is to stay with economic and practical reasons for the decision and let RESULTS justify what you’ve done.
        We’ve now seen both an increase in alarmist reports/papers (which the public is starting to see through) as well as some changes in other governments now that the cash flow has been curtailed.

      • “It might not be . . safe, at this point. Imperiling the world can be a pretty potent argument for . . regime change, if you catch my drift . .”

        John, this describes the entire RINO/SINO (skeptics in name only) culture of the past 40 years. The practical need to capitulate to completely contrived arguments. Witness the healthcare debate over a bankrupt system that only can accept more authority granted to the force that bloated and crashed the system in the first place. Healthcare, mortgages, student loans, public schools, universities and here junk science research authority all being reduced to collectivist he’ll and ruin.

        Trump only represents a whisper of actual dissent and we’re watching a soft coup by the media establishment. Why be afraid of this issue? The whole skeptic team should have been in place day one but the skeptic community itself is devided among pandering fools who give the junk science hypothesis deference and those who see it as social political fraud.

        The “establishment” is short hand for social decline. The west as a whole and the US are in steep decline which includes the inability to critically think as the AGW premise indicates. Trump might as well go down swinging not hairsplitting pandering which leaves all the evil infrastructural forces untouched. As with healthcare reform it’s largely a hand waving exercise to this point. The GOP may be officially dead as an actual opposition to establishment decline watching the HC debacle. AGW authority politics just another example of central planning default thinking.

      • cwon14,

        “John, this describes the entire RINO/SINO (skeptics in name only) culture of the past 40 years. The practical need to capitulate to completely contrived arguments.”

        I think there are far more dangerous critters in the “swamp” than mere capitulators, and, that this explains much of the capitulation to contrived arguments and such. I believe the mass media was long ago co-opted by . . Machiavellian type dangerous critters, to put it very generally, and that this explains much of what we’ve witnessed in terms of the mass media, during the election process and after (i.e. attempted soft coup).

        This is very serious business, I believe, and wrestling power away from those dangerous critters is being undertaken, but has not been accomplished yet. Thing is, I believe those dangerous critters (for the most part) want the US constitutional republic to fail, eventually, in such a way as to discredit what it essentially challenged/threatens all along; Elitist type governance. The “business as usual” model here on planet Earth ; )

      • +1 That accurately describes the current state of affairs and what is attributed to conspiracy theory by virtue signalers and the perpetrators to discredit the accuser.

      • “Sheri, even the dinosaurs (much bigger than us) were billions, and not affecting the climate much.”

        Ah yes – but they didn’t have tractors!

  3. I have been mostly relieved with Trumps actual performance. Pruitt laid out the main reason for withdrawing from the “voluntary” Paris Accord restrictions, that the green blob would seek to enforce them in court. The Green Party in Germany, and the green blob generally, are either hypocrites on nuclear power or seeking other goals than “carbon pollution reduction”.

    • Tom, all the “blob” structure remains in place in academia and industry. It’s simply in incubation mode for the next assent to power. Far from ripping the “roots” out of Paris and the basic fraud behind it.

      The proper policy would be call it a failed idea, surround yourself with what little is left of incorruptible science parties, exit the entire UN Climate Framework as it is antiUS and globalist excess. Talking about making better “deals” only indicated DJT wasn’t ready for the actual issue any more then his healthcare team was ready with a “great plan” and the single payer implosion we are witnessing at the moment.

      America and the world seems committed to more suffering. DJT has some good notions on climate but has failed to execute a sound dissenting change of policy. Soft ball incremental thinking lead to disaster as he has little establishment resources to see it through.

  4. The most damning indictment of the media’s dishonesty is that Merkel can shut down her country’s nuclear plants and replace them with coal plants, and yet the media portrays her as a “leader in the fight against cabon.” That Germany’s greenies support her is yet another indictment, against them.

    • It’s not dishonesty. Governments run on words and catch phrases, not actual actions. It is not important what leaders do, only what they say. That definition has been around for decades—at least back to the 1940s or further. Actions do not count as far as progressives and the media are concerned. When they call her a leader in the fight against carbon (dioxide—obviously the press is not scientific), they mean she talks about in a way they approve of. A leader is person whose WORDS are proper. They can pillage the planet, as long as they “care” with their words.

      • Gee, I must have “taken the red pill.” I consider actions the only thing that counts, and all the rest as noise.

      • “It’s not dishonesty. Governments run on words and catch phrases, not actual actions. It is not important what leaders do, only what they say. ”

        So, there are lying weasels, but it is not dishonesty?
        Huh?

      • “When they call her a leader in the fight against carbon (dioxide—obviously the press is not scientific), they mean she talks about in a way they approve of.”

        I’m afraid the press is more scientific than you are here. It is the peculiar and fascinating behavior of carbon in compounds that gives rise to the potency of those compounds as greenhouse gases. Methane – CH4 – also contains carbon and is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. There are several others.
        When the press speaks of ‘adding carbon’ they are using shorthand which speaks directly and with perfect sense to the scientically literate.

  5. His proposed public debate on climate change should be interesting.

    I have had the task of trying to arrange a climate debate between both sides and I have to say that of the dozens on the global warming side that I contacted, all ran a mile.

    No one wanted to debate anthropogenic climate change/warming from the alarmist point of view.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    • I have had the task of trying to arrange a climate debate between both sides and I have to say that of the dozens on the global warming side that I contacted, all ran a mile.

      I’ll re-use a comment I made about Gore’s similar evasion: “He ducks like a quack.”

    • They knew they would be up against the same kind of fatuous arguments you get when you try to explain evolution to a creationist.
      They know most people are smart enough to ‘get’ climate science when given the facts.
      Scott Pruitt should know that if he ever gets his televised debates, the scientists will wipe the floor with him.

      • Jack,
        All Scott Pruit and his team needs to do is follow Karl Poppers writings on hypothesis.

        Here is Richard Feynman doing and explaining that to a freshman physics class probably at Princeton.

        Here is some empirical evidence of actual climate temperatures and the results of modeling hypothesis’

        (Courtesy of http://www.drroyspencer.com/ website of June 4th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. Former NASA Scientist. Sources of models and observations converted to linear trend for comparison annotated on graph)

        Climate “scientists” understand Karl Popper as well. Thats why they stay away from a real scientific argument.

        Can you figure that?

        Cheers

        Roger
        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • Roger, that actually makes me angry, people invoking Feynman to support their attempt to undermine science. Feynman would recognise the compelling evidence that we are heating the planet. He’d be boxing his old mate Freeman Dyson about the ears and telling him to wake up

      • Jack,

        You better get your predjuces out of the way, because what I explained to you is real science.

        You obviously or or refuse to understand what I was illustrating.

        If the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis stood up to scientific standards, we would see those models in concert with observations.

        Now listen to Feynman very carefully and learn.

        Without using Karl Popper, as Feynman is doing, like he says, its simply wrong.

        The IPCC and all the efforts and $billions spent on “climate change” are just as wrong for this reason and this is therefore undermining science on a colossal scale.

        If somehow the AGW hypothesis was supported by the empirical evidence, there would be very little noise indeed from the scientific community on this issue.

        Roger

  6. He’s a politician.

    America has reduced its CO2 emissions mostly due to fracking. link America is also exporting its CO2 emissions to China, which is to say that China emits the CO2 that America would be emitting if it hadn’t sent all its manufacturing to China.

    Really, Pruitt is taking a cheap shot which isn’t to say that Merkel isn’t also a hypocrite. They’re both politicians doing what politicians do.

      • “Bob, from my vantage Pruitt and POTUS just closed the barn door in time…”

        They’ll have to open it again to let in those goods that China now makes and which America has forgotten how to make.
        You can’t cut yourselves off from the world – we all need to pull together on climate change, which is happening at an ever increasing pace regardless of what people in this forum choose to believe.

    • If by fracking you mean switching to natural gas from coal, then, why not say it.

      Geez. China signed onto the Paris agreement. So, why worry?

      • Fracking enabled the substitution of Natural Gas for coal.
        It is inexplicable that the Democrats and Obama did everything in their power to stop Fracking including phony regulations, lying, and distortion of the facts. The seem to prefer having our country weak in energy production, dependent on unfriendly nations, and high energy prices.

      • ” Obama did everything in their power to stop Fracking including phony regulations, lying, and distortion of the facts.”

        Evidence to support that claim?

      • “Evidence to support that claim?”… Did you miss the investigation results into earthquake and ground water contamination supposedly caused by fracking? Fracking has been successful and safe since 1950 and now its’ a problem?

      • Chris, you are correct. Obama did not oppose fracking, though his general rhetoric sometimes indicated otherwise. Obama was a pragmatist on energy issues – i.e. “all of the above”. If he really opposed fracking he probably could have found a way to stop it.

    • You’re right – we have exported CO2 emissions to China and other places. That is wrong. Still, if we’d kept it here, the planetary emissions would be lower.
      I’m not sure that lower is a good thing. Every inter-glacial appears to have lower CO2 percentages, and this one is no different. CO2 is as critical to life as O2. Running out of CO2 is death.

    • Bob, they are trying to repatriate those jobs. America was pretty clean. They didn’t have to export those jobs to clean the environment. If anything, real pollution reduction was being impoverished by the he CO2 bugaboo. We filled our houses with Chinese curly, badly manufactured mercury lamps that would have been against the law 30yrs ago. Killing free enterprise is killing the environment and yet failure after failure of Marxbrothers ideology only encourages more and more excursions into this madness. Pulling out of the climate Accord will pull the plug out altogether and when the climate unfettered does oodles of good and no apparent harm, Trump will have resolved climate by this action. He should get the Nobel Prize although it’s become a worthless award that we will have to replace while we are replacing Harvard, Berkeley, Oxford, Heidelberg, the Royal Society and all the other failed enterprises. Send your kids to Missouri while this is being done.

      • Send your kids to Missouri while this is being done.

        Not sure what you are suggesting here, but yeah, we are the “show me” state.

        Juan from Kansas City
        : > )

      • Gary Pearse July 14, 2017 at 8:09 pm

        [ commieBob ] “ China emits the CO2 that America would be emitting if it hadn’t sent all its manufacturing to China.

        Bob, they are trying to repatriate those jobs. America was pretty clean. They didn’t have to export those jobs to clean the environment.

        Gary, you can forget about repatriating all of those jobs because it is not going to happen anytime soon. First of all, America has lost 30+ years of apprenticeship and training and thus you can’t re-import those lost jobs without importing the labor to perform them.

        And secondly, with minimum wage demands now at $15/hour there is no way in hell a manufacturer can pay unskilled laborers $15/hour plus entitlements ,,,,, or skilled laborers $30 to $40/hour plus entitlements, …….plus pay all the federal, state, county, city and local taxes, licenses, permits, etc., to produce the current selection of durable and/or nondurable goods that are currently being sold to the American populace. …… HA, even the skilled laborers would refuse to pay the “retail price” for an item that they themselves produced on a factory floor or assembly line.

        And America didn’t export any jobs to other countries, …… t’was the different government entities that forced all those jobs to immigrate to another country or close their doors, fire all employees and go out of business.

        First they created a “rust bucket” in the upper mid-west, including Indiana and Ohio. And now there is a “dead zone” all across the northeast from Buffalo to Albany and on into New England.

      • Samuel Cogar, it wasn’t the government back in the 60s which created the rust belt, it was the union and the compliance of management. Working at a steel mill as a college student I wondered how the industry could survive when Japan and Germany could produce steel and ship it to the US cheaper than we could even make it. Japan even had to import the raw materials. I marveled at how an industry could survive when it paid $30/hr. ( in 1962) to an unskilled worker and give him a 13 week vacation on top of that . When a 300′ smokestack on an open hearth fell over one day, the company got a crane operator in. He worker overtime on the 4th of July. I calculated he earned around $200/hr. that day. You don’t have to be an economist to have read the handwriting on the wall but you had better be reading it today because the same thing is happening all over the country. Enjoy your $15/ hr.minimum wage whilst you are out looking for a new job.

    • “…Pruitt is taking a cheap shot…” BS, he is calling it like it is. The US doesn’t advertise to be a “Climate Change” leader that Germany espouses to be yet totally fails.

      • “…Pruitt is taking a cheap shot…” BS, he is calling it like it is.

        Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. He could be taking a cheap shot and telling the 100% God’s Truth at the same time. :-)

        You can believe and trust politicians if you so choose. It’s a free country.

  7. Irony would be another word to fit Merkel and those actions that are the opposite of what she says that make her a hypocrite.

  8. I for one witnessed by visit the lignite open cast (open pit) mine southwest of Leipzig and the high-temperature facility north of the mine burning the lignite (Miocene and Oligocene).

    Pruitt is correct to direct fire onto Merkel. She is the progeny of the GDR and the communists social organizations that flourished in East Germany. That is the basis of her socialization.

    Germany after WWII saw the brutal (their word) divestment of their Colonies in Africa and South America and economic arrangements with the Mid-East countries. No doubt this fostered the hatred that Merkel can barely contain in talking about “America”, i.e. “Big Whitey”, “Yanks”.

    Her hatred also stems from her socialization as a youth about the basis of Nationalism, “Blut und Boden” and jus sanguinis (by blood) and jus soli (by soil). In Merkel’s psychotic mind, she can as Chancellor kill nuclear power since Germany has no uranium mines (as opposed to lignite, low grade coal). So for her, her decision was made to benefit the Ayran Race, i.e. German Nationalism. To have to “beg” to the “Big Whitey” Australians and “Chink” Chinese, beneath the Demigod German Master Race to Rule The World for 1000 Years!

    You Want To Witness Racism? Go To Berlin!

    • You Want To Witness Racism? Go To Berlin!

      You don’t have to go that far. Visit any black neighborhood in America. If you’re white, it may be the last thing you do. And the MSM won’t even report it.

      • “Visit any black neighborhood in America. If you’re white, it may be the last thing you do.”

        I did that once. Dropped my pack at a hostel in Harlem and walked a few blocks looking for a food joint. An old guy sitting in a brownstone entrance called out “What you doing here honkey boy?” and I waved and smiled. I found a place selling southern style chicken. Young guys were playing craps against a wall and I thought about asking if I could join in, but they were cheerfully engrossed so I left them to it.
        I needed to pee, and the woman in the food joint said I could use the loo in the basement. The basementair was dank, you could smell the age of the city, but the loo was sitting in an island of cleanliness and order.
        The chicken was delicious, covered with slices of sweet potato, and while I waited I chatted to an old guy about the differences between American ways and New Zealand ways.
        The next morning I asked a guy if I had it right for getting to JFK Airport on the subway and he said to stick with him, he was going to work, I think in Little Rockaway. His direction got me to JFK.
        Every black person I met was friendly and helpful – but my experience must have been an exception.

      • “…my experience must have been an exception….” No exception but the “honkey” call out reveals there is danger in racism on both sides of the fence.

      • “the “honkey” call out reveals there is danger in racism on both sides of the fence.”
        He wasn’t unfriendly – he laughed as he said it.

      • Every black person I met was friendly and helpful – but my experience must have been an exception.

        Instead of noon, repeat your travels at midnight. Let us know how it goes.

    • JBorn,
      Seems to me Merkel’s welcoming so many middle eastern refugees into Germany contradicts just about everything you just wrote.

      • It is not clear to me how it does.

        Unfortunately, if history is anything to go by, her action will eventually result in a huge and ugly backlash. I feel sorry for the Germans, but it appears that apart from the former Eastern Europeans, the whole of Europe, including the UK, is heading for a troubling future.

      • Imnigration in Germany is being promoted by ‘One Worlders’, a philosophy that is popular among Fabian Socialists.

        They want a One World people with a One World government, and the way to achieve this is to destroy individual nations. And the way to do this is to mix up all the peoples. It is the old union motto, used in reverse – united peoples result in nations that stand, while divided peoples will allow nations to fall. And from the ruins of that destruction, you can set up a One World government.

        Blair was a One Worlder, as was Obama, and I am sure Merkel is too.

        However, nobody has ever been able to explain how they can prevent the One World president from being another Stalin, Mao, Papa Doc, or Pol Pot. In fact, given the unlimited power that the One World president will have, it is axiomatic that a des.potic tyrant WILL become the new leader (with his white cat), and lead the entire world to ruin.

        R

      • +1 and with the UN at the helm. That is why they are pushing CAGW, Paris Discord, and spending more effort to continue conflicts in the ME than solving them.

    • I don’t know where you live but I’m guessing that you have more experience with Germans than I do. I have a question.

      When I was young, the most vehement anti-communists were people who had managed to get out from behind the iron curtain. How is it with the East Germans. Do they hate communism because they lived under its yoke or do they pine for the good old days?

      • the obedient crave a yoke.
        walk down the wrong side of the sidewalk in berlin and see if the serfs don’t take the time to chastise you about breaking das roolz!

    • I think we’ve just witnessed some kind of bizarre projected racism right here, from you J Bom. That’s filled the need, we’ll call the trip to Berlin off.

    • Actually, I had high hopes for Merkel, as many of the former victims of Marxism have embraced freedom and capitalism.

      She has severely disappointed me, just like Schwarzenegger.

  9. Pruitt…adding, “It was a bumper sticker”…this is such a great metaphor for all climate signalings. Just don’t look inside the car, one cannot see the floor for McDonald’s leftover bags.

    Andrew R nailed this, good find CTM (doing a great job BTW).

    • Yes…that was a great phrase, but I wish he would have added just a little bit more to really drive it home:

      “It was a bumper sticker…a 3 trillion dollar bumper sticker!”

  10. Very refreshing to see top government officials speaking bluntly and openly about the silliness that is the politically correct stance of other countries like Germany. I hope I live to see the day that all the elitist do-gooder nations (here’s looking at you western Europe) truly swallow their pride and admit they were wrong about all the hysterics and bleating over climate.

    • Leftist NEVER admit they are wrong. Never ! They will double-down and don’t care if they are tied in pretzels defending illogical and bizarre contradictions (like their support for the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who hate womens rights, gays and Jews while the Left also claims to support the latter groups).

      Post Modernism rejects logic, reason and consistency ‘phallo’-centric constructs. Thus, Leftists never admit they are wrong and deny failure – their answer to any failed government programme is an even bigger and more expensive government programme (also destined to create more problems that it solves).

      Such is the way with utopians whose self-image relies on them denying ugly realities.

    • Is there any word on whether Trump is going to appoint a chief science advisor? Awhile ago it looked like Happer might be it. Then there was a rumor about someone else – can’t remember who. What’s the latest?

  11. Pruitt is right . If they are so worried about the earth’s fever why would they shut down a major source of energy that generates relatively small emissions . Sounds like Merkel was anti nuke before Al Gore discovered the earth was having a fever .
    Germany never looks good in pink . The USA has just done a sharp right while continuing to
    improve the environment and their economy . The truth is it is going to take time to right the ship but
    heading down the Merkel cut sac and make Mr. Trumps day .

    • Amber
      Al Gore did not discover that earth was “having a fever”.
      He took advantage of inadequate knowledge and pasted few ad-hoc charts together, and because he was a vice president people took him seriously. Fear is a commonly used motivator that the muppets in society follow.. Similar words like evil doers, communists, axis of evil, threats to our democracy, where people are conditioned to react and support. Then they got lucky, earth was going through a mild natural warming phase from the early eighties.

    • Having worked for the German nuclear industry. My expediency is that there is strong will for support from the govenment but that the green lobby is also strong. That’s democracy.

  12. I hope Pruitt will add prime-minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, to this hypocrisy box. He just cut public transport away from tax deductions. But global warming blabla, CO2 deductions needed. Meanwhile some next ice age news: Snow in Québec last Wednesday 7/12/2017. Latest (or earliest) snowfall ever this province, in Shefferville, Québec (in French):
    http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/environnement/201707/12/01-5115485-lete-est-annule-a-schefferville.php

    Also the antarctic winter starts to hit hard with possible record breaking cold weather as the Pampero blows all the way into central Chili:

    http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/central-chile-to-endure-unusual-snow-record-challenging-cold-this-weekend/70002197

  13. “Pruitt reiterated his position that the climate is warming and humans contribute to that,”

    I do wish Pruitt would quit saying the above, since there is no evidence for either. Unless you want to call a couple of tenths of a degree “warming”.

    • Most scientists do seem to hold that position. A couple of tenths of a degree is warming, though it may not be significant. Suddenly, it seems what used to be a fringe belief that CO2 has no effect is now mainstream?

      • I agree with TA. They need to stop saying they know humans have contributed to warming when you still can’t tell whether the “warming” is natural or not. After all it was warmer when the Vikings had colonies on Greenland than it is now, so how can anyone say the current temperatures are not only not natural but human caused. And no, that “most scientists” say something doesn’t make it true.

      • Sheri, just in case you think I am one of those who thinks CO2 has no effect, that’s not the case. My position is we don’t know what CO2’s net effects are.

        We speculate about what CO2 might do, but we have NO evidence to demonstrate what it is doing, and to imply there is evidence, like Scott Pruitt is doing with his comment, is not factually accurate.

        So Pruitt should not say something he cannot prove. CO2’s effects could be entirely offset by negative feedbacks, and noone can prove differently right now. Pruitt’s comment is speculation.

      • The science says that, all else being equal, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some rise in atmospheric temperature. This is the ‘settled’ science that the fear-mongers are constantly referring to. Its pretty good science. It is logical and rational. And it means nothing in practical terms.

        First of all, it only suggest about 1 degree of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Secondly, nothing else is equal. The natural climate is in constant flux, in ways that we do not understand. So, TA is correct when he says that their is no evidence of a human contribution to warming. In order to identify that evidence, we would have to know exactly what the climate would do without our emissions, and we don’t.

        Still, it is very good science that says we are having some warming influence, that currently appears to be swamped by natural climate variability. As to whether or not it is currently warming…that depends on the length of time you wish to look at. We are currently warming form the LIA, but appear to be cooling from the Holocene Climate Optimum.

        Pruitt’s statement is scientifically accurate (in the proper context) and politically smart. If you are trying to contain a destructive forest fire, you don’t fan the flames! You build a buffer around the fire and let it burn itself out. I like to think that is what Trump and Pruitt are doing.

      • TA, to be more accurate in your statement, shouldn’t you say “what CO2 at levels above 280 ppm is doing” ?? Helps shut up the “You’re just a greenhouse gas d e n i e r” crowd.

      • “TA, to be more accurate in your statement, shouldn’t you say “what CO2 at levels above 280 ppm is doing” ??”

        phil, if negative feedbacks apply to CO2, they would apply to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, human-caused and from natural causes.

        It seems to be a pretty good bet that negative feedbacks apply to CO2 since we haven’t had a runaway greenhouse in the past even with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now.

  14. If only we heard similarly sensible and pragmatic argument from senior government officials in other nations but regretfully they remain wedded to the global addiction to this toothless accord and so called “settled science”. When are these fools going to come to their senses? You’ve all been conned!!

      • And you know this how?
        Do you think the ones who seem to believe the scaremongers are correct are just all liars then?

      • It’s not outside of the realms of possibility Nich. I think she’s mainly referring to the phony “left” politicians. Do they do anything else ?

  15. It’s refreshing and very encouraging that Pruitt is finding his voice and taking the offensive. The moral high ground assumed by Merkel and Macron was an illusion. Trump burst that bubble by withdrawing unapologetically. Pruitt needs to pick up the pace and unmask these charlatans and poseurs at every opportunity, pointing out the inconvenient facts anabashedly. There are millions more like us waiting to step out of the shadows if only our leaders will give voice to the truth and embolden them.

  16. Mr Pruitt failed to chastise the Europeans for failing to frack for natural gas, probably the most effective way to energize an economy and reduce CO2 emissions. The reason is that CH4 contains so much hydrogen that, when burned, produces H2O, water.

    • Frederick Colbourne

      Yes! This ban or “moratorium” on frac’ing by several European countries is completely stupid – France, Bulgaria, Scotland to name a few. Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most successful techniques ever for accessing hydrocarbons, both liquid & gaseous, and worldwide the oil & gas industry has carried out a total of ~ 2.5 million (yes! 2.5 million!!!) frac jobs around the world since the technology was pioneered in Kansas in 1947. About 85% of conventional oil/gas wells in the continental US require hydraulic fracturing for them to produce at economical rates and that has been the case for many, many years. So, all these people making a fuss about frac’ing need to have a reality check. The fact that we are now conducting fracturing operations to access historically “unconventional” sources of hydrocarbons in shale and other source rocks hasn’t made this technology any less desirable. In fact, if Europe would just open its eyes and see the opportunities for its own energy independence (from Gazprom, for example), they might indeed be able to re-energize their economies (pun intended)!

      • Europeans need to get with the program and start fracking their heads off. You see what it is doing for the U.S. economy. Why would you deny yourselves this bonanza?

        Europe’s Leftist politicians are living on Bizzarro World, where everything is backwards.

        Now we know: It *is* possible for millions of people to suffer the same delusion at the same time, in this mass-communications age.

    • Rebuttal of Global Warming Hysteria:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/

      Observations and Conclusions:

      1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

      2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

      3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

      4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

      5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.

      6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.

      7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

      8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.

      9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.

      10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

      Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015

      • On 9, Germany has the world’s most reliable grid… and a lower winter mortality, despite lower temps on average, than the UK – and 35% renewable energy.

        Oh – yes the unit price of electricity is high, but Germans use 35% less of it per household than Americans. Plus they very well might have their own renewable energy income stream…

      • Griff wrote: “Germany has the world’s most reliable grid”

        That is false. The German grid has come within millimeters of total failure due to wind power.

        One example:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/comment-page-1/#comment-2310685

        [excerpts]

        There was a near-grid crash in Germany due to wind power on Christmas Eve, 2004, as cited in my post below from circa 2005.

        Naturally, our imbecilic politicians cannot grasp this simple concept: “The wind does not blow all the time.”
        Some of them believe that grid-scale storage is a current solution – it is not.

        Imagine if the grid actually crashed at Christmas in Germany, instead of a near-miss. It would have been a disaster, costing billions due to frozen pipes, etc., and much human suffering.

        Imagine if that happened in a colder country, like Canada, or the northern USA.

        Source: Wind Report 2005, by E.On Netz, then the largest wind power generator in the world.
        http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf

        **************************

        My post from circa 2005 follows:

        Here is a quotation from Wind Report 2005 by E.On Netz for the German wind power grid. As you can readily surmise, wind power is a huge problem for grid operators.

        Within just two days, the entire generating capacity of German wind power disappeared, necessitating the startup of the equivalent of TWELVE 500 megawatt coal-fired power plants.

        During the steepest drop on December 24, 2004, they lost the equivalent of one 500MW power plant every 30 minutes!

        The truth is that wind power requires 100% backup from conventional power sources, a duplication of resources that makes wind power entirely uneconomic.

        The feed-in capacity can change frequently within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6, which reproduces the course of wind power feedin during the Christmas week from 20 to 26 December 2004.

        “Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.

        Handling such significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”

  17. I loved this discussion going on here, I am from OZ but to see some common sense and logic at this time, especially from America is very heartening. The very amount and the depth of these hydrocarbons would suggest that it is a natural product that the world produces strange as it may seem. Long live America the world needs you.

  18. Well said Pruitt. The bare faced truth is that European leaders are fundamentally ignorant about climatology and the history of climate change, and are fed by civil servant zealots, the Met office and the Royal Society – who do not follow their own motto. These should be weeded out by testing their knowledge base – easy. Who will start this rout? They are destroying the basis of western civilization.

  19. Pruitt is so right.

    Now … for some relaxation, let’s once again watch the following 2007 documentary because now we can see just how so true it was in demolishing the IPCC science and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”:

    • It is a very nice documentary. Why not Donald Trump is widely circulating this video in the media adding an introductory statement by himself? It would be so much in favour of his recent stance on climate policy. He needs to defend his climate policy to the world for what he is severely criticised. If he publicises similar/same documentary in his own defence, the actual (true?) Climate Science research will benefit a lot out of that endeavour. It is really frustrating to watch such an unhealthy environment in climate science research for so long!!

  20. “America has reduced its CO2 emissions mostly due to fracking.”

    Which is why there are so many ‘protests’ against shale gas in the UK. If you have a product that doesn’t work but which the government is subsidizing to the hilt, and someone comes along with a product that does what yours claims to.. Then since you can’t compete fairly the only option left is to sabotage your competitor.

  21. The globalists are lusting for climate control for one reason…a new and unlimited tax base. Science and reason will be turned on their ears to achieve it.

  22. I would classify Pruitt as barely a Skeptic, and his statements about climate and on climate policy are borderline idiotic. For example, he says: “the ability to measure with precision the human contribution to warming is something that’s very challenging to do.” That alone shows that he doesn’t even understand the issue itself, let alone anything about it. He stupidly just handed the Climatists a straw man argument.

      • Inability to comprehend much? No one, not even Warmunists ever say or said that it can be measured with anything even approaching “precision”.

      • Not sure about this…they report numbers to one hundredths of a degree, and claim that this is proof that dire actions are required to prevent catastrophe.

    • Now the belief that CO2 contributes any amount whatsoever to climate is the WRONG belief? Is there a consensus on that I missed? It used to be the fringe. Or are skeptics eating their own now too? Believe any warming is due to CO2 and you’re the enemy. The warmists did it if you did not believe it was a catastrophe, I guess the skeptics are due to turn on each other now too.

      • Bruce…you would make a very lousy politician! Telling people that they are wrong and stupid has the opposite effect of what you might desire. If someone is in the dark (literally or figuratively), you do not help them see by shining a light in their eyes. They will just close their eyes tightly and be very angry at you. But if you bring up the light gradually, they will come to see clearly enough.

        We don’t need to convince the world that we are ‘right’ about all the science. We just need to persuade the masses that their is no cause for alarm, and put an end to these destructive policies and pointless regulations.

        There is a popular expression in the relationship business: “You can be right, or you can be married!” Ultimately, politics is about relationship. Is the global warming paradigm ‘wrong’? You bet, but much of the world can’t see that. If we are to live in relationship with this world, we have to give up our insistence that we are right they are stupid and wrong. We need to speak to them with words that they can hear and accept. Pruitt is basically saying to them: “Hey… I see your point, but what if we looked at it this way. Couldn’t we come up with something better?” They can start to hear words like that. They will start to be persuaded, not alienated.

        The truth of the science will come out in time, but right now, I just want an end to the destructive policies and regulations. Pruitt is much more capable of steering the regulatory mess in the right direction than he is in changing the AGW paradigm. Let him do his job! He is on our side.

      • You’re statement is completely false. I know of no scientist that thinks CO2 will have no impact.

  23. Well said, Pruitt. It’s about time somebody in a position of power and influence started telling it the way it really is. Much damage has been done by leaving the field clear for the warmunists for so long.

  24. Since when are solar and wood ‘renewable’? what’s being renewed? The only form of ‘renewable’ energy is wood. Burn wood -> heat (energy output) and CO2 produced. CO2 + photosynthesis -> wood produced -> energy renewed.

  25. Someone earlier mentioned how bad Paris and Itlay was. Have you been to New York City lately? It is turning into a sess pool and getting more expensive by the day.

    • Was in Montreal last week for the Jazz Festival, first time in 10 years.
      Big neighborhood changes, Little Italy is very different, a lot of halal shops popping up all over.
      Lots of Islamic dress code all over the place.
      Much begging on the streets and while stopped in traffic. Lot of construction downtown.
      But the music was great and the International Fireworks Competition (it was Italy) at La Ronde was incredible.

  26. Casting a suspicious glance, does “exporting technology” mean GE selling windmills and panels to Africa? Export coal and gas.

  27. Sheri at 5:06

    That is just a silly comment. Newton was right within bounds. Einstein was right within bounds. Ever notice how msny formulae have bounds? Pruit made a good statement. There are always bounds … Even if they are unstated or we don’t know what they are.

    Have a good day.

  28. Ms. Merkel, however, sounded a somewhat bleaker note. “The whole discussion about climate was very difficult, not to say unsatisfactory,” she said. “There’s a situation where it’s six, if you count the European Union, seven, against one.”

    “This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said. “There are no signs of whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris accords or not.”

  29. “This is not just any old agreement, but it is a central agreement for shaping globalization,” she said.”….. How many people really understand the intent of ‘globalization’? Anyone in a successful country should be wary of any attempt to redistribute the world’s wealth based on Socialism. Socialism has been an abject failure yet it continues to be a spreading cancer.

  30. The only science applicable to the current climate discussion is “political science” which in the end is just a way to warp statistics to get the desired outcome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s