Type to search

EPA Employees Protest Trump’s Nominee To Head Agency

Congress Economy Headlines Health Politics Science Top News White House

EPA Employees Protest Trump’s Nominee To Head Agency

Trump EPA nominee Scott Pruitt

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former and current employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expressed opposition to President Donald Trump’s pick to run the agency on Monday – in an open letter and a small street protest – reflecting divisions over the new administration’s plans to slash regulation.

Over 400 former EPA staff members sent a letter to the U.S. Senate asking it to reject the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the agency’s new leader, saying “he has shown no interest in enforcing environmental laws.”

In Chicago, around 30 employees of the EPA’s regional office there joined a protest organized by the Sierra Club environmental group and the American Federation of Government Employees to protest Pruitt’s nomination.

Doug Eriksen, a spokesman for Trump’s transition team at the EPA, downplayed the Chicago protest, saying “employees have a right to take action on their private time.”

Trump has vowed to cut regulation to revive the oil, gas and coal industries, and has said he can do so without compromising air and water quality. He nominated Pruitt, who has sued the EPA more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s top prosecutor to block its regulations, to run the agency, sparking alarm among Democrats and environmentalists.

Last Thursday, the Senate environment committee approved Pruitt despite a boycott of his nomination by the panel’s Democratic members. He is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate, in Republican control after last November’s election, but a date for the vote has not been set.

The former EPA employees who sent the letter to the Senate wrote that they believed Pruitt has a history of siding with industry and has been reluctant to accept “the strong scientific consensus on climate change.”

Employees at the Chicago rally raised concerns that Pruitt may cut employees and resources needed for the agency to enforce environmental regulations.

“The EPA needs to be able to enforce the rules when companies are breaking the law,” said Sherry Estes, an EPA lawyer who participated in the protest.

(Additional reporting by Robert Chiarito in Chicago; Editing by Dan Grebler)

IMAGE: File Photo: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing on his nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, January 18, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts



  1. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017

    First, any employee openly opposing the President should be terminated.

    Second, the EPA should be abolished and then its mission reformed. The agency is filled with people who could be classified as zealots against anything remotely connected to business.

    Third, the current EPA is based on a huge conflict of interest. The agency makes rules and then enforces them. More rules, more enforcement the greater the programs and budgets, the more promotions.

    Most agencies run this way, which is why govt. grows out of control. It has the wrong incentive structure if we want small but more efficient and effective govt.

    1. timmfr30 February 7, 2017

      Fourth, you are a misguided asshat….I’m sure the likes of exxon have our best interests in mind…DUH

      1. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017

        exxon has its own interest in mind. It just happens they make and sell a product I find of value to me. So do most of my fellow citizens.

        1. timmfr30 February 7, 2017

          can you say..’company store’?… when they destroy this rock we live on we all lose..buck up..try walking..turn that thermostat down,breathe what good air we have left..think of future generations…

          1. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017

            You first. Lead the way. Show me how your life improves with NO FOSSIL FUELS.

          2. timmfr30 February 7, 2017

            we obviously have to ‘wean’ ourselves off …to accomplish that ,one must start….why the resistance? Paranoia will destroy ya…I just made that up…PEACE

          3. Independent1 February 7, 2017

            Being a moron, you off course are not aware that Germany and a number of European countries have already reduced their dependence on fossil fuels by over 50%.

            And reducing fossil fuels improves everyone’s life by 1) reducing carbon/sulfur build up in the oceans which is making it more acidic and thereby starting to kill of lots of marine life (do you really want to live on a planet with the oceans so polluted even fish can’t live there?)

            And 2) eliminating fossil fuels will reduce the thousands of people who are dying every year from sulfur and other breathing problems, including lead, that comes from all the pollution fossil fuel power plants spew into the air. (Projections are that over 30,000 die each year just from the air pollution created by coal-fired power plants).

            And 3) Reducing fossil fuels will save the destruction that’s been created all over America by fossil-fuel related companies going around drilling and fracking and doing every pollution intensive thing they can to extract fossil fuels from the ground – even gas.

            Thousands of farms and people’s lives have been destroyed by pollution created from fracking and drilling on or near their lands. Not to mention the devastation that is being created in Oklahoma by the constant earth quakes resulting from all the fracking and drilling there which has turned Oklahoma into the earthquake capital of America.

            And all of this doesn’t even address the calamity that fossil fuel burning is working to create for all of us via global warming – and yes I know – you’re too much of an idiot to believe in the facts that are given to you about global warming. So before you respond – just go shove it you know where!!!!!

          4. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017

            So can I put you down for jumping off the ship next? I don’t know how you could live with the guilt.

          5. Independent1 February 8, 2017

            When the planet becomes unlivable because you idiots refused to believe in global warming IT’S YOU AND YOUR MINDLESSLY IGNORANT ILK THAT WILL BE GUILTY!!!!


    2. Independent1 February 7, 2017

      Do you actually have a functioning brain?? I really wonder.

      1. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017

        Yes I do, along with personal knowledge of the EPA.

        1. Joan February 7, 2017

          My guess is that your “personal knowledge of the EPA” consists of a ruling against you and for the enviroment. Obviously your “personal knowledge” is not sufficient for you to refute Indepent’s well reasoned objections to the reliance on fossil fuels.

          1. Just A Citizen February 7, 2017


            No, that is not the sum of my experience with EPA. It involved them issuing decisions on things they had ZERO expertise. That was the beginning. Then dealing with them in interagency discussions where they proved to be nothing but anti corporation zealots. Using their positions to carry out political agendas unrelated to the environment.

            I do not need to refute Independent’s objections to fossil fuels. Which were not “reasoned” at all, by the way. Just repeating talking points. The discussion was not about fossil fuels. It was about the need to reform the EPA. First step would be to bring it in line Constitutionally.

          2. Independent1 February 8, 2017

            Wow!! You’re even learning how to fabricate wild fantasies like Trump; you don’t seriously believe any sane poster here believes one word of those pack of lies, do you worthless???

          3. idamag February 8, 2017

            He is probably a farmer who tried to dump toxics into the ground and got caught.

  2. itsfun February 7, 2017

    What else would you expect from former employees that have had their own way for at least 8 years now? A new sheriff is in town.

    1. Eleanore Whitaker February 7, 2017

      What else would YOU expect from a bully CEO who NEEDS spies in every corner of government? Give it up Itsy. Trump is so using the same demeanor all failure CEOs use when they know they can’t control it ALL…he is determined to drain the swamp of the US’s top defense, environmental, financial and scientific experts because like all failure CEOs, he must continue his fake ideal that HE and only HE is the most intelligent. What the hell does that make Einstein then?

      Time for you to pack it in. There are already 5 investigations into the Russian hacking and at least 3 panels for impeachment. You and your lying bastard Traitor are going down.

      My hope is that he loses his Secret Service security when he is impeached. Because if he is, he will not be entitled to Secret Service protection and we will rip his mouth so wide open he can stick you and all your right wing morons in it.

    2. Independent1 February 7, 2017

      Yes, I’m not surprised that you right-wing dirtbags would rather see –

      Arsenic coming out of your drinking water as more companies started dumping industrial wastes because Trump removes more regulations.

      And more people dying from the pollution that coal-fired power plants spew into the air as Trump relaxes those regs too (they already estimate 30,000 die each year from pollution caused by coal – but then, what’s 30,000 more when Republicans think nothing of allowing tens of thousands to die due to the lack of health care and even the food they need survive).

      And you wouldn’t mind seeing more fisheries and businesses that depend on America’s coasts go belly up as more of our ocean waters are polluted because Trump allows more deregulation of the oil industry and more drilling offshore.

      And I know you’ll be thrilled when more states end up like Oklahoma which has become the earthquake capital of America because the idiot Republicans who govern Oklahoma really believe in Drill Baby Drill and Frack Baby Frack!!

      And my guess is you’re not going to be happy until a much larger percentage of America has been turned into worthless lands like has happened in West Virginia because the idiot Republicans there have allowed strip mining to go hog wild and destroy half the waterways in the state.

      You right-wingers are just absolutely despicable, money hungering dirtbags that nothing means anything to you unless it brings you money even as it destroys the world you have to live in!!! What moronic idiots you are!!

      1. InformedVoter February 7, 2017

        Sorry Elle but climate change is a hoax. The 97% number has been debunked over and over. Sea levels on the west coast are falling. Your so called dire predictions are more fantasy than reality.
        REAL scientists, not the ones looking for billions to keep their lucrative jobs, openly mock those “scientist” that make the fake claims. But what else would you expect from FAKE scientist headlining stories in FAKE newspapers and FAKE news sources.

          1. InformedVoter February 8, 2017

            What a bunch of garbage stats! CO2 emissions are 159,000 giga-tons annually from NATURAL sources. That includes volcanoes and other NATURAL sources. The number HAS NOT risen in years! Your chart has been shown to be wrong many times.
            ALL MAN-MADE activities, from ALL NATIONS, is 5 giga-tons, annually. You do the math you low information dude.!
            5/159,000 = ? I’ll let you do the math. The CO2 emissions is not an issue, yet you lefties just shout CO2 – CO2! You know, you really should do some research (from a credible source) BEFORE you spout off with numbers from sources that have been proven to be lying!
            Regarding the surface temps, NAOO has altered ACTUALLY recorded temps from the 1920s, 1930s and even 1940s, they lowered them significantly and never alerted anyone they were doing so, so that their models would look accurate. If you restore the ACTUALLY recorded temps from those three decades, then you would see CLEARLY that the average temps are in fact FALLING! In 1950s, these same scientists were telling the world to prepare for a GLOBAL ICE AGE!
            How low information can one be? Just look in the mirror and you just might find the poster child – it’s you!

          2. Independent1 February 8, 2017

            Wow!! Do you have a ghost writer that makes all this stuff up or
            do you just spend all your time creating fantsies!! Everything you just posted IS A FLAT OUT LIE!!!!

          3. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Golly Gee ID1, so you are going to claim that NOAA did not change the actually recorded data not once, not twice, but three times? They admit they made the changes. They called it making the historical data more accurate.
            So they are saying that ALL the cities around the world have been recording incorrect data for decades, yet they only changed data from those years when the temps were hotter than they are now.
            The weather experts, in the 1950s, were predicting an ice age by the 1990s!
            The CO2 emissions just don’t add up. 159,000 giga-tons to 5 giga-tons is just too little a factor yet the “experts” are yelling the sky is falling!
            Try accessing news sources other than CNN or MSNBC.

          4. Independent1 February 12, 2017

            And there you go with more of your lying crap; truth is, that annual volcanic emissions of CO2 aren’t even 1% of what humans put into the atmosphere:

            Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

            This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.


          5. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Sorry but your FAKE facts just don’t make the cut. CO2 emission sources are not just from volcanic activity.
            Natural sources of CO2 create 159,000 giga-tons annually. This has been proven to be pretty constant for centuries. ALL man-made activities create 5 giga-tons annually. 5/159,000 is a pretty damn low number!
            So you can keep yelling the sky is falling all you wish. The IPCC continues to make itself look foolish, but that never stopped you from quoting their lies.

          6. Independent1 February 12, 2017

            More of your moronically stupid BS!!!!!!!


          7. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Yup, you can cry “the sky is falling” all you wish, but it will not make you FAKE global warming junk the truth.
            The idiots who are making the fake claims are getting rich off the backs of even dumber folks like you. It’s all about the BILLIONS that these charlatans are getting. And the Dem leadership follow along because it leads to bigger government and government control – what car you can buy etc.


            You just keep going down in flames. I guess you like that.

          8. Independent1 February 13, 2017

            You are clearly brain dead!! Goodbye LOWLIFE!!!

          9. dtgraham February 13, 2017

            You got that right.

          10. InformedVoter February 13, 2017

            Defeated lefties huddle together because they are so closed-minded that they can’t accept the truth.

          11. InformedVoter February 13, 2017

            I just love the way you lefties go ballistic when their fake proof collapses.
            If you wish to upset a conservative, you tell them a lie (like you lefties do).
            If you wish to upset a liberal, you tell them the truth (like I have done).
            You guys just can’t handle the truth.

          12. Independent1 February 13, 2017

            Here you go brain dead, give us a good explanation on this one.

            If the USGS climate stats I’ve been posting are fake news, why is it that since about 1910, 120 of 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park have melted away?? Glacier’s melting almost in our lifetime that hadn’t melted in hundreds of thousands of years!!!

            Come on, let’s hear you weasel your way out of this lowlife!!

            If what I’ve posted is a hoax, WHY HAVE 120 GLACIERS MELTED AWAY IN 100 YEARS????

            The Big Thaw

            “If we don’t have it, we don’t need it,” pronounces Daniel Fagre as we throw on our backpacks. We’re armed with crampons, ice axes, rope, GPS receivers, and bear spray to ward off grizzlies, and we’re trudging toward Sperry Glacier in Glacier National Park, Montana. I fall in step with Fagre and two other research scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey Global Change Research Program. They’re doing what they’ve been doing for more than a decade: measuring how the park’s storied glaciers are melting.

            So far, the results have been positively chilling. When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park’s namesake glaciers will disappear.

            “Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime,” says Fagre. “It’s like watching the Statue of Liberty melt.”

          13. InformedVoter February 16, 2017

            You really are slow on the uptake aren’t you! The statement that NOAA changed the ACTUALLY recorded temps is not subject for discussion. NOAA admits they changed them 3 times. Their excuse is to “correct” data, but that means that hundreds of cities, worldwide would have had to record their actual temps incorrectly. The real reason was so their models would look correct.
            So ask yourself “how did the Great Lakes get formed?”. Gee, glaciers melted! Duh! And many of your glaciers melted in the 1920–40 because the temps back then were higher than now.
            The problem you low information dummies have is that the climate is more like a sine wave, but you low information dummies just can’t seem to grasp that.
            So, it looks like I didn’t have to weasel out of anything after all.

          14. Independent1 February 12, 2017

            You are a pathological lying fool who is going to rue the day that you keep denying that global warming exists!!! You better start looking for that spaceship LOWLIFE!!!!!!!

          15. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Just keep shouting the sky is falling. Can you say hoax? The 97% number is 12/1100! Even your new math can’t get that number to hunt.

          16. Independent1 February 12, 2017

            And the world’s biggest fool will sit back and do nothing while the world starts to collapse around his ears; tell your BS to all the Republicans in South Florida who are working like crazy to save their homes and livelihoods from the rising Atlantic waters. Tell them to just sit back and wait until more salt water leaches into south Florida’s aquifers and millions of people living in that area no longer have potable drinking water.

            Tell that to all the people in Chile who are struggling right now through the hottest summer in Chile’s history with wild fires after wild fires burning up the country.

            You are such a mindlessly ignorant fool that it’s astounding!!

            How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record

            Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. Of the 17 hottest years ever recorded, 16 have now occurred since 2000.

            Human-induced climate change has made it at least 160 times more likely that three consecutive years after 2000 would be record-setting, according to Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University.


            And fools like you are going to go on living in denial until you drown from the rising oceans or burn up because where you live is too hot to sustain human life!!!

            Fools like you beget FOOLS!!!

          17. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            Must you display your ignorance on every post? If you restored the ACTUALLY RECORDED temps from the 1920-40, then the hottest three years would have been from that era, NOT since 2000, as you ignorantly claim.
            Your CO2 emissions logic tells volumes of the FAKE information you spew as fact.

        1. dtgraham February 8, 2017

          So one guy can debunk 97% of climate scientists “over and over” huh. Richard Lindzen is a paranoid nut or just a liar or both.

          Check out the Richard Lindzen debunking by the rest of the scientific community.


          1. InformedVoter February 8, 2017

            Why must you prove you’re so naive and low information over and over! Of the 1100 “scientist” it turns out that the 97% number is 12! Yup, the rest only accepted one or two of the political group’s findings. Hence 12/100 does not equate to 97%! When will you low information lefties challenge the FAKE news sources? Probably NEVER!

          2. dtgraham February 10, 2017

            That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

            The authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all.

            The two key conclusions from the paper are:
            1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

            2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

            Get off the nut job websites, idiot boy.

          3. InformedVoter February 11, 2017

            The problem is that the 97%, or any number in the 90% range, is FAKE. The sources you quoted are twisting the facts. The papers produced by the IPCC claim high agreement and acceptance, BUT they are twisting the truth – or so folks like you can comprehend, LYING. One of my colleagues was a member of the IPCC and left because of the findings being written by politicians and not the actual scientists who examined the facts. The biggest lie is the 97% number that you low information trolls like to spout as universal acceptance, which it was NOT.
            And how about NOAA CHANGING actually recorded temps from the 1920-1940 so their model would be correct. If you replace the FALSIFIED temps NOAA substituted, then one would quickly see that the global temps have NOT risen since 1996!
            In fact, in the late 1940s the weather “experts” were warning of a global ice age by 1990.
            The problem is that the global temps are like a sine wave, but NOAA and the IPCC, in order to get BILLIONS in funding have falsified the true data, and you lefties love it because it means BIGGER government!

            NOAA keeps publishing numbers from “sensors” that were scattered about the oceans. They relied on these to find were all the rising temps would manifest themselves. The problem is that the majority of these sensors stopped functioning 15029 years ago. Yet NOAA keeps reporting their readings! FAKE news! And two years ago NOAA published findings that read “we know the temps have to be rising but we can’t find where they’re rising. So the temps in the deep oceans must be warmer than our sensors have been reporting”.
            You low information folks keep talking about CO2 emissions. So the true numbers are:
            ALL mother nature in the entire world, produces 159,000 giga-tons annually.
            ALL man-made activities in the entire world, produces 5 giga-tons annually.
            You can’t twist the truth and now claim that CO2 emissions are out of control. Yet that’s exactly what you low information subjects fawn over.
            Try accessing some sources that have TRUE information instead of the FAKE stuff you’ve been spewing.

          4. dtgraham February 12, 2017

            Even if your NOAA conspiracy theory was correct (it’s not) 2016 was the third consecutive year to rank hotter than all previous years. It also means 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, according to NOAA.


            I know that’s a tough pill to swallow for those who have misused the short-term slowdown in global surface warming in the 90’s to argue against climate policies, but the slowdown is likely over. The conspiracy theories need to be too.

            Contrary to the conspiracy theories, climate scientists process the raw temperature data for an important reason — to remove biases that don’t represent real temperature changes. The big one in the new NOAA analysis deals with changes in the ways ocean temperatures have been measured. They’ve been measured from water samples in insulated buckets, uninsulated buckets, from valves in ships’ hulls, and from instruments on buoys.

            A number of studies have found that buoys tend to measure temperatures that are about 0.12°C colder than is found by ships at the same time and same location. As the number of automated buoy instruments has dramatically expanded in the past two decades, failing to account for the fact that buoys read colder temperatures ended up adding a negative bias in the resulting ocean record. This change is by far the largest single factor responsible for changing global temperatures in the past 17 years compared to temperatures found in the prior NOAA record.

            Stations have also moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.

            To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken. Those are the adjustments under attack by the conspiracy theorists. They’re important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature.

            The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.

            Here’s what the conspiracy theorists won’t tell you, and why your logic on CO2 is off. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. That’s the ticket.

            Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained steady for thousands of years. That’s because natural CO2 is not static. It’s generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

            Land and ocean carbon remained roughly in balance and did so for a long time — and that’s known because they can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

            Consider what happens though when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle — by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

            Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 may be a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange can’t absorb all the additional CO2.

            The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up. The additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.

            Verstehen Sie?

          5. InformedVoter February 12, 2017

            There are many errors in your post. Nature produces 159,000 giga-tons (not 750) annually. ALL man-made activity creates 5 giga-tons (not 29). Thus the percent increase is significantly lower than you stated.

            The number of measurement spots is LESS than before and those working have been moved closer to large cities. Thus, the temps would certainly have to go up.

            NOAA changed the actually recorded temps for land locations. The newspapers in the 1920-40 reported their highs and lows, and didn’t report on the water temps, like you proposed. NOAA changed the actually recorded temps THREE times to make their models work. The numbers changed were for cities around the globe so if there were errors then EVERY city in the world would have had to make the same error.

            And lest you forget, weather experts in 1950, based upon the actually recorded temps from around the world in 1920-40 predicted a new ice age starting in the 1990s. Just like the fake Al Gore’s prediction about global temps for 2000, which are nothing but wild guesses.

            Regarding ocean temps, the folks at NOAA could not detect ANY increases in ocean temps, though they claimed that the temps “must” be increasing. They theorized that the deep areas of the ocean were warming, because they could not find any increases elsewhere.

            Finally, the 97% number is really only 12/1100 scientists. The IPCC’s claim that 97% say global warming is real is an out and out lie. The politicians who wrote the report (not written by scientists) had something like 50 talking points. If a scientist agreed with just one of the 50 points, then the IPCC charlatans counted that scientist as agreeing with the report (even though they disagreed on the other 49 points).
            How do we know this, because many who were on the IPCC panel have spilled the beans on how the IPCC got to their 97% number. One of my colleagues was a member of the IPCC crowd and left partially because of the absurd reporting methods.

            There are BILLIONS at state and these free-loaders (certainly not scientists) are riding the gravy boat for as long as the gov is willing to pay them for saying the sky is falling.

            Here’s an interesting stat for you to ponder; why do almost 30% of the staffers at the Weather Channel not agree that global warming is real? Yup, that’s the number from a couple of years back. So the only way for the number to change is to replace those who don’t agree with those that do. So much for diversity in thinking.

            Universities are notorious for stacking the deck. They claim they’re diverse, yet they only hire those that think like them. So it’s a shame that universities are diverse centers of learning.

          6. dtgraham February 13, 2017

            Wrong on all counts.

            Carbon composes much less than 1% of the atmosphere. Even this small percentage adds up to 750 Gt of carbon, which is still a lot. Carbon in the atmosphere occurs almost entirely as CO2; small amounts of methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also present. These gases are all radiatively active, that is, they trap heat near the surface of the earth. So they also are considered greenhouse gases.

            — From the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

            You don’t have any colleagues on the IPCC panel. It’s time to put up or shut up. Give me proof, Mr. conspiracy theorist, that the entire scientific community has falsified their data for some unknown reasons. Don’t quote Breitbart or Alex Jones. Give me data from more than just the 3% or so, most or all of which are made up of the fossil fuel funded conservative whores with no scientific ethics, scruples, or principles at all.

            You must surely be aware that if human induced climate change were not true at all, these climate scientists would still be working and researching climate in a way that they’re also presently doing. Their employment and income would not change. Give it some thought. Like, a lot of thought.

          7. InformedVoter February 13, 2017

            You use the equivalent of CNN or MSNBC as your fact base. And you wonder why you come out knowing very little truth.
            Yes a colleague was a member of IPCC and one of those who rejected every single talking point of their report. It turns out that more totally rejected all the points than accepted all the points.
            Yes, their income and jobs would vanish if the world scrapped the fake climate change theory. Without the billions they receive to produce fake reports, they would have to seek employment doing something else. It’s easy money for them.
            You have displayed that you’re naive about this subject.
            My stating correct information like this helps get the 95.2% accurate percentage.

          8. dtgraham February 13, 2017

            No need for such modesty. I heard your accuracy rating was 95.4% on www. Blowhard Wing-nut. com. So, you got nothin’ then? I’m shocked I tell you…shocked.

            Let me get this straight. If climate change were not happening, the discipline of climate science itself would disappear along with all of the scientists in that field, who would then be selling insurance or doing accounting. Have I got that right?

            Do you ever stop to really examine and consider the things that you post?

          9. InformedVoter February 16, 2017

            With my high accuracy rate, no need to examine the truth that I post!
            With climate change having not been proven to be really happening, it means that the fake scientists continue to cry the sky is falling because they know that they can get rich by producing fake reports. The bigger the lies, the larger the purse for them.
            Hence “your totally dumb post” of the fake discipline disappearing just makes you look even more inaccurate and foolish. But then again, you low information dummies would not see that.

          10. dtgraham February 17, 2017

            “With my high accuracy rate, no need to examine the truth that I post!”

            I’ll never question it again. You need to change your posting name to, “The all-knowing master of time, space and dimension.”

          11. InformedVoter February 20, 2017

            I guess you think you score points with meaningless drivel, but so do most of your fellow lefty posters. That’s how us conservatives manage to shred your arguments so easily … we stick to facts and you stick to FAKE MSM sources.

          12. dtgraham February 21, 2017

            Here’s how disingenuous the climate debunkers get. This, from one of the skeptics.

            Data from the American Geophysical Union journal, Geophysical Research Letters, show that about half of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere and about half are taken up by natural carbon sinks… OK, almost all of climate science agrees with that.

            They then go on to extrapolate from that statement and say: However, new data shows that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
            This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. In other words, the co2 absorption rate has not been decreasing. [this was the main thrust of the argument on one of the debunker sites]

            So?? If about half of anthropogenic co2 remains in the atmosphere and doesn’t become part of the carbon cycle while 100% of natural carbon does get absorbed, what do you think that will do to atmospheric concentrations of co2 over time even if that balance remained constant?

            Today, the atmosphere contains about 720 Gtons of carbon (regardless of initial output). The concentration of carbon dioxide is about 360 ppm. No matter its source, one billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide would increase its concentration by 0.5 ppm (360 / 720) if all of it stayed there. However, scientists estimate that an amount equal to about half of annual human carbon emissions is absorbed by the environment each year. Of the half absorbed, scientists have accounted for where half of that goes. Where the other half goes is the “mystery of the missing carbon” (about 1.8 Gton per year).

            Since about half of human carbon emissions are not absorbed by the environment, this fraction accumulates in the atmosphere from year to year. A better way to look at the relation between carbon emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is to examine the cumulative total of emissions.


            Above link: Anthropogenic carbon emissions [green circles; 0 – 7 billion metric tons (Gton); scale to left] and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [red squares; 295 – 365 parts per million (ppm); scale to right] from 1900 to present.

            The data from the above link/graph has been fitted with a linear regression (i.e.,best linear fit) from the year 1900 to present. The slope of the relation is 0.266 ppm per year per Gton of emissions. If exactly half of human carbon emissions have been absorbed by the environment, the slope would be 0.25 (0.5 / 2). The expected intercept is 298 ppm (in the year 1900). That of the regression is 293. The r-square goodness of fit is 0.996. This means that 99.6% of the variance (i.e., variability) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is completely accounted for by anthropogenic carbon emissions. The correlation coefficient between cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is r = 0.998 (e.g., r = 1.0 represents an absolutely perfect match).

            Four source—carbon sink scenarios which explain the observations are presented in Table 1 below. Scenario A reflects the data presented above which indicates that all, or nearly all, of the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Scenario B allows for a minor amount of natural emissions, about 5%. Scenario C assumes that there are natural sources, as yet unidentified, of the same magnitude as human emissions and that there are, as yet, undetected sinks which can account for the observed net concentration of carbon dioxide. This is the position taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Scenario D assumes that human contributions to carbon dioxide accumulation are insignificant (about 5%) and therefore have no effect, as argued by the climate-change skeptics.

            Cumulative human carbon emissions over the past 200 years (270 Gton) as well as net carbon accumulation in the atmosphere (160 Gton) are known quantities. Scenarios A – D balance these quantities with the required net natural sources and carbon sinks which would determine the specified human contribution.

            TABLE 1. Four scenarios of net cumulative carbon sources (+) and net sinks (-) for carbon added to the atmosphere from 1800 to present in billions of metric tons (Gton).
            Scn. Human (+) Natural (+) Subtotal (+) Natural (-) Net (+&-)
            A 270 (100%) 0 ( 0%) 270 110 (41%) 160
            B 270 ( 95%) 14 ( 5%) 284 124 (44%) 160
            C 270 ( 50%) 270 (50%) 540 380 (70%) 160
            D 270 ( 5%) 5400 (95%) 5670 5510 (97%) 160

            One of the basic principles of science is the simplicity hypothesis. That is, among competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Scenario A in Table 1 satisfies the simplicity hypothesis. Scenario B accounts for the possibility that there could be a minor amount of natural emissions. Scenario C, advanced by the IPCC, leaves wiggle room for adaptation to the, as yet, incompletely understood carbon cycle; including the mystery of the missing carbon. Scenario D, put forth by the climate-change skeptics, is preposterous on its face. Here, a 5.4 trillion ton, undetected natural source (emitting 95%) as well as a 5.5 trillion ton natural sink (absorbing 97%) are required to explain the observations. Further, in accordance with the data this hypothetical net source and sink must have grown over the past 200 years almost exactly in parallel with human carbon emissions. That’s not credible to say the very least.

            What you’re advancing is an economic/political argument only. When the climate skeptic/debunking websites that I looked at use words like Marxism to describe climate science, what does that tell you?

          13. InformedVoter February 22, 2017

            I just love how you climb all over climate change deniers, but fawn of the so-called experts who say it’s “proven”. It’s so easy to debunk your so-called experts too.
            Since you claim that CO2 emissions are not a problem, why is it that the majority of you lefties keep yelling about the CO2 emissions? Could it be that you low information folks don’t know what you’re talking about? Duh!

          14. dtgraham February 23, 2017

            What?? I never once said that co2 emissions are not a problem, nor do “lefties”, nor do climate scientists (who are all that counts). In fact, the latter are the ones claiming that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the problem. Are you able to understand anything that they say?

            You say that it’s so easy to debunk the climate scientists but I sure don’t see you doing it. In fact, you’re so out of it and so steeped in your political fantasies that you claimed no warming at all since 1996. Actually, the 21st century has so far produced a number of the hottest years ever recorded. Including the last three.

            Alone, by itself, just look that one up on-line and then take a long look in the mirror. Ask yourself who the low information one is?

            Oh I forgot. http://www.right wingnut/liehard.com will tell you the opposite. And for you, they’re all that counts.

          15. InformedVoter March 3, 2017

            Is the climate changing? YES, it’s been changing for millions of years. It gets cold, it gets warm, it gets dry, it gets wet.
            Is global warming real? NO, It has NOT been proven to be true. All that exist are opinions. The models from NOAA keep changing and they have fudged their data at least 3 times to make their model look correct. They have lied about the data being collected … the majority of their reporting stations have not been operable for decades.
            So you can continue to say that those who are getting rich for publishing this garbage, are correct, but that doesn’t make their opinions correct.

          16. dtgraham March 4, 2017

            “So you can continue to say that those who are getting rich for publishing this garbage, are correct, but that doesn’t make their opinions correct.”

            That only describes your fossil fuel funded whores.

            “they have fudged their data at least 3 times to make their model look correct. They have lied about the data being collected.”

            That only describes your fossil fuel funded whores.

          17. InformedVoter March 4, 2017

            My, my, you’re even more of a low information person than I thought. NOAA has been caught, at least three times, changing the actually recorded temps from decades ago, to make their models correct. So how many other times have they fudged the real temps and not been caught? NOAA admits they’ve “corrected” many decades’ worth of ACTUALLY recorded temps.
            So now you claim that it’s the fossil fuel folks who have altered actually recorded temps – so please prove the proof. Ah, duh, you can’t because they have never done so.
            Caught you in a big one didn’t I!

          18. dtgraham March 4, 2017

            There’s been no warming since the 90’s huh. That’s clearly and obviously wrong.

            There, that was easy.

          19. InformedVoter March 4, 2017

            How naive, lazy and dumb can you get. I asked you to prove your false statement that the fossil fuel folks altered actually recorded temps, like the folks at NOAA have done at least three times.
            So you most recent post would certainly be classified as drivel and garbage. If you had been alive in the 1930s, you would be claiming that you just had the hottest 15 years in history. So the “scientists” at NOAA changed the real temps to make those 2 decades a lot cooler than they really were.
            Still waiting for your PROOF that fossil fuel folks altered real data.

          20. dtgraham March 6, 2017

            This is just head banger stuff at this point. I’ve pointed out everything that anyone with two brain cells to rub against needs to know, and I’ve addressed every single one of your “points.”. There’s nothing more that I could say or that you could read that will change anything. No matter what is presented to you the response is always, “oh the world’s scientific community are all conspiratorial liers although I can’t prove it.”

            You continue to completely forget what I said, mischaracterize what I said…and make false statements, on purpose. Because for you this is just politics, not science. There’s no point in continuing this.

          21. InformedVoter March 7, 2017

            So how about an admission from a NOAA “scientist” that they manipulated actually recorded data, or even made up data, to prove their point?
            And yes, it’s politics by the FAKE MSM to get bigger government control of you! What are you going to realize that?

          22. InformedVoter February 16, 2017

            One of my colleagues used to be part of the IPCC. As I mentioned earlier, he resigned because of the reports being written by politicians instead of the scientist. He was one of several who condemned ALL the talking points of the report.
            The reason they published the sky is falling report is quite simple, they receive billions to continue the fake findings. Just the fact that you say falsify their data for “some unknown reasons” shows how low information you are. Money is a large motivator.
            So, after claiming that CO2 emissions were a large factor in global warming, now you’re claiming that they’re not! Do you realize how foolish you look?
            When are you dummies going to realize that climate change HAS NOT been proven to be real!

          23. dtgraham February 17, 2017

            “So, after claiming that CO2 emissions were a large factor in global warming, now you’re claiming that they’re not!”

            No, I claimed no such thing. I merely quoted the climate scientists’ research which shows that the excess of man-made CO2 is the culprit. The earth produces a natural level of CO2, which data shows has been absorbed by other processes and has kept the CO2 atmospheric levels in check for millions of years. It’s when you start to get beyond the natural historical levels is when the problems start.

            That’s what I said. Disagree if you like (why?), but you have to at least be able to comprehend what the science and data are showing.

            So, you don’t think that fossil fuel industry funding for “climate research” is a motivator to produce misinformation? Sure pal.

          24. InformedVoter February 18, 2017

            Once more you failed to keep your lies straight. First you claim the CO2 emissions are killing the planet then you you claim that CO2 emissions are only a small part. I noticed that you didn’t address the 159,000 giga-tons from nature vs. the 5 giga-tons from man-made. Yup, just ignore the true facts.
            And now that Pruitt is head of the EPA, we can look forward to the true facts being revealed vs. the lies we’ve been fed for 8 years!

          25. dtgraham February 18, 2017

            I didn’t claim the first thing. Not like that. I addressed the second thing. Like I said, you can disagree, but you have to be able to first understand what it is that the science is saying. Otherwise, what are you disagreeing with?

            Here, I’ll do a Republican: “I’m not a scientist.” Unlike a Republican though, I can read and understand what they’re saying.

          26. InformedVoter March 3, 2017

            Unfortunately for you, it’s the Dems who don’t accept new ideas. Dems are close-minded, brainwashed and bigoted. The don’t allow opposing views to be expressed. Thus, it would be more likely for a Dem to say “I’m not a scientist and I will believe anything the left controlled media prints”.

          27. dtgraham March 4, 2017

            “Thus, it would be more likely for a Dem to say, “I’m not a scientist and I will believe anything the left controlled media prints”.

            However, Democrats never ever say that. Only Republicans imply that their own media is all that’s believable despite the extreme minority scientific view that they accept. The Dems, in contrast, quote the 97% scientists only. You’ve noticed?

            Democrats don’t quote the Fox News, Kelly-Anne Conway, Trump White House, alternative facts.

          28. InformedVoter March 4, 2017

            So you believe the 97% number. Well, that 97% number is part of the FAKE news you have been fed. As it turns out, the way the 97% number was arrived at is FAKE. in reality, only a handful of the scientists polled completely believe in global warming. The majority do NOT accept the entire premise presented.
            It’s FAKE stats like the 97% number that I was referring to when I posted “I will believe anything the left controlled media prints”.
            They certainly got you to believe them. Naive!

      2. idamag February 8, 2017

        There was a man in the hospital with my spouse. He had worked in the coal mines and was dying from black lung. When a vocation becomes obsolete, a smart person prepares for something else, instead of whining. Robotic technology is going to make more jobs obsolete.

    3. Independent1 February 7, 2017

      And in case you haven’t noticed, even some of our big veterans’ organizations are starting to let Trump know they’re not happy with his childishness – in this article a wounded veteran tells Trump to start acting like a president if he doesn’t want to be considered illegitamate.

      Veteran To Donald Trump: This Is ‘Not The America I Sacrificed For’

      “Look, you lost the popular vote. You’re having trouble drawing a crowd.
      And your approval rating keeps sinking. But kicking thousands of my
      fellow veterans off their health insurance by killing the Affordable
      Care Act and banning Muslims won’t help. And that’s not the America I
      sacrificed for,” he says in the ad, which aired during MSNBC’s “Morning
      Joe” on Monday. “You want to be a legitimate president, sir? Then act
      like one.”

      To see the video – go here:


    4. Independent1 February 7, 2017

      And even some companies are starting to trash what Donald Trump stands for:

      Top Chef Alum Prints ‘Immigrants Make America Great’ on Customers’ Receipts

      Mark Simmons, who starred in season 4’s Top Chef: Chicago, has been reminding patrons that the cuisine they enjoyed at his New Zealand-themed restaurant, Kiwiana, was made and served by immigrants.

      “Immigrants make America great (they also cooked your food and served you today),” it read on all the Brooklyn eatery’s receipts, according to a bill tweeted by NBC News contributor Mary Emily O’Hara.

      “I am an immigrant myself, I am from New Zealand. This is a New Zealand restaurant, and we support immigrants,” Simmons told Mashable on Monday.



  3. Sean Andrews February 8, 2017

    I have profited 104,000 thousand dollars in last twelve months by working from my house a­n­d I manage that by work­ing in my own time f­o­r 3+ hours each day. I was following an earning model I came across online and I am so happy that I was able to earn so much money on the side. It’s beginner friendly a­n­d I’m so thankful that i found this. This is what i did… http://statictab.com/6mairvf

  4. idamag February 8, 2017

    No intelligent person likes trump or his nominees. I am sending a postcard to: Trump at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20500. It says, “I don’t like you.” If he gets enough of these, he will freak and maybe go to Russia.

  5. ivory69690@yahoo.com February 8, 2017

    see the thing here is DONNY DUMP has lying classes for his whole staff at the end of every day . never to miss one . daily briefing can be missed BUT NOT HIS LYING CLASSES and at the end as in every thing in his life he tells all that thy cant talk to no one about what ever is said or heard . (this way the truth can never come out on anything of his ) DUMPSTER stands on lie like a rug and make it so no one can tell the difference between a lie (and what I never try to tell ) the truth


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.