EPA Chief Wants Scientists To Debate Climate On TV

foxbusiness.com ^ | July 11, 2017

[Helicondelta]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the early stages of launching a debate about climate change that could air on television – challenging scientists to prove the widespread view that global warming is a serious threat, the head of the agency said.

The move comes as the administration of President Donald Trump seeks to roll back a slew of Obama-era regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, and begins a withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement - a global pact to stem planetary warming through emissions cuts.

"There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered (about climate change)," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.

"Who better to do that than a group of scientists... getting together and having a robust discussion for all the world to see,"

[2banana]

But, but, settled science.

The debate is over...

99 scientists agree...

[no-to-illegals]

my bet is there will be no debate. Would love to see a debate but the evidence for humans being the cause of weather is laughable

[rrrod]

I’d rather see a duel....

[Dixie Yooper]

Is Martha Raddatz going to be the moderator? That’s probably the only way the majors will air it... Or force PBS & NPR to do it, because they do like our tax money.

[Castigar]

“...and begins a withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement...”

What do they mean “begins”. We weren’t obligated in any way so why do you have to begin anything. You just do it. It’s done!

[Steve Van Doorn]

There is no debate. To date that has not been one single peer reviewed paper that makes the claim of "global warming" or a Catastrophic Anthropogenic positive feedback loop.

Once a peer reviewed paper does make that claim we can start debating it's merits.

[b4me]

Great! Out all their lies and misinformation on tv with lots of folks watching!

[The Great RJ]

I could see Al Gore and Bill Nye appearing as the Climate Change Inquisition a la the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition skit

[olezip]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the early stages of launching a debate about climate change that could air on television – challenging scientists to prove the widespread view that global warming is a serious threat, the head of the agency said.

What a wonderful idea!

I believe that there is a desperate need for the entire world to better understand what is the scientific method, what are the assumptions, what data are used, and a basic understanding of the methodologies associated with the study of climate change.

What are the key assumptions, including their pros and cons? What data are used, and associated strengths and weaknesses? What methodologies are being applied?

What are the differences (and limitations) of satellite temperature data vs. ground based temperature measuring systems, in terms of location, sampling rates, accuracy, interpretation, etc.

[BuffaloJack]

You don’t debate science.
Science is fact. You debate concepts that are dubious or poorly defined.

[norwaypinesavage]

"We weren’t obligated in any way so why do you have to begin anything"

Actually, we WERE obligated. The Obama "executive order" signing the agreement bore the force of law. Anyone could sue to force compliance, and the courts would have to enforce it. Being an "executive order", any future president could revoke it with another "executive order".

Until Trump did that, though, it could have still been enforced by the courts. Even though the provisions in the agreement were toothless in the international environment, US courts could have still enforced the provisions agreed to by Obama. When Obama agreed to cut US "carbon" emissions by a certain percentage at a certain date, liberal courts would have enforced that limit regardless of the toothless international enforcement.

[henkster]

I would like to see this debate, but a half-hour TV show isn’t the proper forum for it. They’ll trot out Bill Nye the Pervert Guy and Leonardo DiCrapio and put up some photos of sad looking polar bears on an ice floe.

[Rebelbase]

That would be wonderful. Gore and Nye would be reduced to spewing slurs and attacking children.

[az_gila]

There is no debate. To date that has not been one single peer reviewed paper that makes the claim of “global warming” or a Catastrophic Anthropogenic positive feedback loop.

Once a peer reviewed paper does make that claim we can start debating it's merits.

---

That may be true, but it's not what the general public thinks after nonstop media brainwashing.

A careful TV debate (as opposed to the usual MSM shouting match) would be a good thing.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I agree with you. The sad part is if it’s put on by the oil companies we’re screwed. They’re all promoting the hype while part of the hype is they’re the bad guys.

[publius911]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the early stages of launching a debate about climate change that could air on television – challenging scientists to prove the widespread view that global warming is a serious threat, the head of the agency said.

A totally useless exercise, if the proposal assumes that global warming is a serious threat.
Wrong premise!

The neutral premise : that periodic random periods of cooling and warming are natural occurrences the cause for which are not at all clear or fully understood, for reasons that ARE known:
Accurate worldwide temperature records over tens or hundreds of centuries simply don't exist. Never have.
Proxy records are used instead, and these are at best spotty. These proxy records should NEVER be under the control of a single individual or entity, the temptation to play God is simply too great.

e.g. East Anglia University and Michael E. Mann, criminal. QED.
This delusional arrogant, custodian of hundreds of years of questionable proxy records Tree rings, Ice cores and terrestrial geologic cores, considered what extensive records had been compiled as his "private property," and destroyed ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DATA!"

Whether those records can be duplicated today is arguable, so the debate must address this before all else.

Next, the "debate" must begin as a legal one, not a scientific one, and must be held in a court of law, Using the Manual of Legal Procedures created to address contentious technical issues among disinterested, but recognized experts in their fields : weather, climate, geology, instrumentation, statistics, Paleoclimate, atmospheric chemistry, physics and observed near earth processes involving all of the foregoing --- which may or may not be possible.

There is no assurance of a definitive answer, and the rules of Science must always prevail.

All this has never been attempted in a court of law.

Quackeries and dimwit theories, on the other hand, abound.
Most common, among the delusional alarmists is reliance on questionable computer modelling, all of which have proven demonstrably and totally inadequate to date.

[Castigar]

Actually, no. An Executive order only binds the federal government as far as the operation of the federal government itself goes. Once anything beyond that is concerned there is no obligation or, for that matter, authority. Possibly a court could order the federal government to comply, but comply with what? It can’t order congress to do ANYTHING and that is where any and all spending would have to come from.

So...no. There was nothing the US was required to do.