EPA’s Pruitt hammers Obama environmental record: ‘What did they achieve?…Flint and Gold King’


Interviewed by WDAY’s Rob Port, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt excoriates the Obama Administration’s environmental record.
Pruitt: “What did they achieve? With respect to water you had Flint and Gold King. With respect to Superfund sites you have 1322, approximately, Superfund sites across the country which is more than when President Obama came in. Air attainment? Still at 40 percent non-attainment in this country, with respect to Ozone. Roughly 130 to 140 million people living in non-attainment. What’s so great about that record?”
ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: “Look at the past Administration’s environmental record and ask yourself, ‘What did they achieve?’ With respect to water you had Flint and Gold King in Colorado. With respect to Superfund sites you have 1322, approximately, Superfund sites across the country which is more than when President Obama came in. Air attainment? Still at 40 percent non-attainment in this country, with respect to Ozone. Roughly 130 to 140 million people living in non-attainment. What’s so great about that record? On carbon, they tried twice to regulate CO2 and struck out twice. Supreme Court told them in UARG– the UARG decision that they overreached and they told them in the Clean Power Plan that they overreached. So, I don’t quite understand the environmental left when they say that somehow what the past Administration has done was so great.”
The Rob (re)Port
With Rob Port
Interview with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
970 WDAY
Fargo, ND
May 10, 2017

EPA chief sued for doubting global warming hysteria

EPA chief Scott Pruitt has been sued for his recent comments on CNBC’s Squawk Box. The lawsuit is here. The media release is below. ### For Immediate Release: Apr 13, 2017 Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337 EPA’S PRUITT SUED TO BACK UP CLIMATE CHANGE CLAIMS Pruitt Should Put Up Evidence Supporting Stance or Cease Climate … Continue reading EPA chief sued for doubting global warming hysteria

Source: EPA chief sued for doubting global warming hysteria

EPA chief Pruitt on rogue employees, the environment, and frivolous lawsuits

Paris accord a ‘bad deal’

Pruitt reiterated on Fox & Friends we need to leave the Paris climate accord, once again calling it a “bad deal” for Americans. China and India, he said, have no obligations to reduce CO2 emissions until 2030 even as the United States continues to lower its own emissions at the expense of its economy. The accord, Pruitt said, contracts our economy while serving European needs through an agreement that’s not legally enforceable.

He said he was investigating the EPA division in Las Vegas that bilked taxpayers out of $15,000 to pay for gym memberships. Pruitt will be visiting coal mines in Pennsylvania today to further explain President Trump’s executive orders to miners and to let them know the war on coal was over. He will also stress clean coal, which he says is not a myth, as well as shale oil and gas recovery.…

Delingpole: EPA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox

I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.

Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.

VIDEO EPA chief unconvinced CO2 linked to global warming

Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.

And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.

Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.

Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.

Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record.

Pruitt had no convincing comeback.

Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?”

Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond.

Trump’s EPA Chief Calls Paris Agreement Raw Deal For US Citizens


President Donald Trump should continue international discussions on environmental issues even if the Paris climate agreement is a “bad deal,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Scott Pruitt said Sunday.

The Oklahoma Republican did not tip his hat as to the future of the much-talked about climate deal, which was signed by former President Barack Obama and requires the U.S. to dramatically reduce greenhouse gasses. Trump’s Democratic predecessor signed the deal last year without the Senate’s consent.

“To demonstrate the leadership that we have shown on this issue with China and India and other nations is very important and discussions should ensue,” Pruitt said during an interview on Fox News, “but what Paris represents is a bad deal for this country.”…

Chris Wallace goes full warmist: Touts UN ‘guesswork’ as hard science & ‘carbon pollution’ in interview with EPA chief

Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace uncritically cited “guesswork” by UN scientists as some sort of hard science during an interview with EPA chief Scott Pruitt on April 2. Wallace also hyped discredited “hottest year” claims and referred to carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas humans exhale as “carbon pollution.” Wallace also praised China’s emission efforts and implied that EPA regulations and UN agreements would impact climate change. (Full transcript & video here)

Wallace asked Pruitt about his recent statement noting that carbon dioxide was not the control knob of the climate. See: EPA chief says CO2 not primary contributor to ‘global warming’ – Calls UN Climate Treaty ‘a bad deal’ (Note: Pruitt’s statement was scientifically sound and climatologists defended his comments. See:  Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on EPA chief Pruitt’s CO2 comments: ‘I think these two statements made by Pruitt are absolutely correct’ – Curry: ‘I do not find anything to disagree with in what Pruitt said’)

Wallace claimed: “Mr. Pruitt, there are all kinds of studies that contradict you.” He then cited the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 claim that there it a “95% likely” that “human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Wallace even featured this onscreen graphic to make his question look official:

Apparently absent in Wallace’s show preparation was the fact that the UN IPCC’s “95%” claim is nothing more than guesswork and has no statistical basis whatsoever.

Even Reuters news service recognized this in a 2013 article.  Reuters explained that the UN IPCC’s 95% confidence of human causation of global warming was “based on a discussion among the authors,” not a scientifically sound statistic. 

Reuters essentially exposed that the fact that UN scientists (who are hand-picked by governments to support the IPCC’s political mandate that it seeks to further the human climate change narrative) talked their way to the 95% claim!

“Scientists use a mixture of data and ‘expert judgment’ to decide how likely it is that climate change is man-made and rule out other factors, such as changes in the sun’s output,” Reuters wrote. [Note: Many UN scientists have turned against the organization. See UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report]

‘No more scientific a process than a show of hands’

Lord Christopher Monckton, a former …

How dare he!? EPA scientific integrity office reviewing Pruitt’s comments that CO2 is not climate control knob

By Emily Flitter | NEW YORK

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific integrity watchdog is reviewing whether EPA chief Scott Pruitt violated the agency’s policies when he said in a television interview he does not believe carbon dioxide is driving global climate change, according to an email seen by Reuters on Friday.

Lawyers for environmental group the Sierra Club had asked the EPA’s Office of Inspector General to check whether Pruitt violated policy when he told a CNBC interviewer on March 9, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The EPA Inspector General’s office responded to the Sierra Club on Thursday in an email, saying it had referred the matter to the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer, Francesca Grifo, for review.

“If after the SIO review, she concludes there is some aspect of the letter itself, or her findings or conclusions that she believes are appropriate for further consideration by the OIG, she will so notify the OIG,” the email stated.

A spokeswoman for the EPA defended Pruitt’s comments.

“Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science and commonsense regulations that will protect our environment, without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens that kill jobs,” said Liz Bowman in an emailed statement.

“Differing views and opinions on scientific and technical matters is a legitimate and necessary part of EPA’s decision-making process, which is consistent with EPA’s scientific integrity policy that was in place even during the Obama administration,” she added.

The EPA website says its scientific integrity policy requires EPA officials and staff to ensure the agency’s work respects the findings of the broader scientific community.…

It’s D-day for EPA climate regs. Bombs fall at 2 p.m.

President Trump will try to land a knockout blow on his predecessor’s sprawling climate agenda by issuing an executive order today targeting at least nine actions that form the foundation of U.S. efforts to cut emissions and prepare for rising perils.

The “energy independence” order, to be signed at 2 p.m. today, underscores Trump’s belief that the seriousness of climate change was overblown by the past administration and deserves to be set aside in order to revive a struggling coal industry and encourage an unbridled boom in the production of oil and gas.

A senior White House official, when asked yesterday if the president agrees with scientists who say that people are largely responsible for rising temperatures, told reporters, “Yeah, sure.”

But the administration appears deeply skeptical about the extent of potential damage that climate change might cause, and the order to be signed today would leave the administration seemingly free of any policy to address the risks — both environmental and economic — that scientists have warned about for years.

“I mean, to the extent that the economy is strong and growing and you have prosperity, that’s the best way to protect the environment,” the White House official said in a briefing about the order. “But certainly, natural gas is important. Clean coal’s important. Nuclear is important. Renewables are important.”

Today’s executive order sets EPA on the road to rescind the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule to reduce emissions at power plants 32 percent by 2030. The official said rescinding the rule could take up to three years and is bound to face legal challenges.

The order also eliminates Obama-era efforts to improve adaptation, embed climate risks in national security apparatuses, reduce agency emissions, expand the importance of climate impacts in the National Environmental Policy Act and freeze new coal leases on public land. It also begins a review of methane regulations by EPA and the Bureau of Land Management and a rule on hydraulic fracturing by BLM. And it will instruct agencies not to use the social cost of carbon when weighing the costs and

Reuters: U.S. group Sierra Club seeks IG probe of EPA’s Pruitt over skeptical CO2 comments

By Emily Flitter | NEW YORK

U.S. environmental group the Sierra Club has asked the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general to investigate whether the agency’s head, Scott Pruitt, violated internal policies when he said he did not believe carbon dioxide was a major contributor to climate change, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the Sierra Club wrote to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General on Tuesday asking the independent watchdog to check whether Pruitt violated the EPA’s 2012 Scientific Integrity Policy when he told a CNBC interviewer on March 9, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The request ramps up tension between the U.S. environmental movement and the administration of President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a hoax meant to weaken the U.S. economy and has packed his Cabinet with people who question the science of climate change.

An overwhelming majority of scientists think that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to global climate change, triggering sea level rise, droughts and more frequent violent storms.

“It’s pretty unprecedented to have the head of the EPA contradicting basic scientific facts,” Sierra Club Senior Attorney Elena Saxonhouse told Reuters on Wednesday.

In the letter, the Sierra Club’s lawyers said Pruitt’s comments contradicted a “comprehensive review” of scientific research on climate change and appeared to be politically motivated.

The EPA website says its policy is meant to maintain “a culture of scientific integrity for all its employees,” and requires EPA officials and staff to ensure the agency’s work respects the findings of the broader scientific community.

“Administrator Pruitt’s comments are perfectly in keeping with the scientific integrity policy,” EPA spokesman John Konkus said in an email. “There is an ongoing scientific debate on climate change, its causes and its effect. That debate should be encouraged as the Administrator has done, not discouraged as Sierra Club is attempting to do.”

A spokeswoman for the EPA’s inspector general said in an email the IG’s office could neither confirm nor deny investigation requests.…