Science Restored in DC! EPA chief says CO2 not primary contributor to ‘global warming’

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

“But we don’t know that yet. … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

Pruitt maintained on Thursday it’s possible to be pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-environment all at once.

“This idea that if you’re pro-environment you’re anti-energy is just something we’ve got to change so that attitude is something we’re working on very much,” he said.

Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, “a bad deal.” He said it puts the United States on a different playing field than developing countries like China and India.

The United States has vowed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. In comparison, China has committed to reach peak carbon emissions levels by 2030, but will try to reach that point sooner.

“I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through senate confirmation. That’s a concern,” he said.

Read rest…

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Truth to power!
    That sound we hear is eco-leftists melting and screaming like the Wicked Witch in of the West…

    ARRRRRGH! ‚Äî YOU CURSED BRAT! LOOK WHAT YOU’VE DONE! I’m MELTING! Melting! Oh ‚Äî what a world, what a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?! ARRRRRGH! I’m gone! I’m gone! I’m going!…

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Mr . Pruitt is absolutely right . The extreme green industry rebranded global warming to
    the words climate change but what they didn’t tell people was they also created their own fake definition of climate change . Their version of climate change is supposed to mean change that is 100% from humans ignoring the massive overriding influence of natural variables that actually shape climate like the sun . Their little trick was on full display when Bill Nye was interviewed on Fox by Tucker , when he stumbled and mumbled, bobbed and weaved and finally spit out his opinion that 100 %
    of climate change was caused by humans. If asked would most people say
    100% of climate change is from humans ? The globalists and the climate fear industry
    rely on a mainly scientifically illiterate public and media to come out with such utter crap .
    Mr . Pruitt “s comments destroy the climate con game by simply telling the truth .
    Natural variables have run the earths climate for over 4 billion years and the added trace gas CO2 from humans is largely beneficial if anything . Of coarse human generated CO2 it isn’t a primary contributor to global warming which in itself is highly desirable and as everyone knows climate changes no matter what humans overblown sense of impact is .
    Well said Mr. Pruitt . If the global warming /climate change alarmist were right then humans would have discovered how to control the earth’s thermostat and that would be news . The scary global warming con game is over . Back to real science for a change .

  • Avatar

    R. Johnson

    |

    Globalist frauds and scaremongers invented the concept that CO2 is earth’s thermostat. They picked CO2 because life produces it and life needs it to survive. AGW is a total scam fabricated to destroy capitalism and freedom–we are not the problem, in fact there is no problem.

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Leftists intentionally picked global warming/climate change as their cause because it is the perfect Trojan Horse for their political and economic agenda. The climate cannot speak for itself, is incredibly complex, and literally lends itself to the-sky-is-falling hysteria followed by immediate demands.

    Eco-leftists further embed themselves and complicate the issue with impossibly complex (and failed) computer models stacked one on top of the other. They then set themselves up judge, jury and executioner proclaiming that they should be sole arbitrators of the cause. The whole thing is intended to be an enigma that keeps fact finders chasing their tails in search of endless contradictions while the left furiously demands a litany of political and economic measures to “fix” a problem that is supposedly scientific.

  • Avatar

    Nadeem

    |

    Maybe now some skeptical climatologists / other scientists will stick their heads above the parapet and disagree publicly with the “consensus”.

    • Avatar

      G

      |

      I agree Nadeem. What America needs is an Edward R. Murrow vs McCarthy moment where a prominent scientist testifies firmly and publicly, confirming what many American people already know…

      …THE CLIMATE CHANGE MOVEMENT IS A MASSIVE SCAM!

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    The Republicans won but that alone hasn’t put the AGW-Climate change movement out of business. Most of us have political emotions regarding the subject. It’s obviously a left wing cause and a frustration to the right. It really should be settled using strict unadulterated science. Release the raw data and all records related to its collection. Let each side pick their experts and fight it out in front of the public. The first casualty will be the ” science is settled” ruse just by debating it. Next casualty will be the “concensus” lie. It should also become obvious that we have no control over climate so why pretend that we do. Forget the “summary for policy makers”. Hold a referendum after both sides have presented their case.

    • Avatar

      G

      |

      In theory I agree with that approach. However, a major problem is the way climate change has become a corrupt industry. It’s hard to find enough climate scientists who haven’t been on the take in some way for many years. Whether they recognize it or not, many of these people have accepted massive grant funding in return for politically predetermined results. The entire premise of their funding and livelihood is to deliver the goods for the eco-left.

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    I see it as a contest between science and junk science.Let each side choose their debate team. Equal numbers, say four a side. Give them time to prepare. Strict debate format. Publicize it and the media will promote it free of charge. I just read a little bit about the Scopes monkey trial. The public paid attention. The teacher was found guilty but it was not a victory for religious fundamentalism. The trial elevated science.

    • Avatar

      G

      |

      Your’re right Sonny – true science does not depend on religion for verification. The Scopes Monkey Trial is an interesting comparison. For instance, I am a true believing Christian but I strongly disagree with the way fundamentalists sought to restrict speech and science so as not to conflict with their belief system.

      Likewise, I work in the natural sciences and I strongly object to the religious abuse of science by the political left using “denier” tactics and other such measures.

      There seems an irony in each case. As a Christian I would argue that we can both acknowledge God as our creator AND embrace the awesome and fascinating phenomenon of evolution and natural selection. The idea that each are opposed is a false premise.

      As a scientist I would argue that we can be good stewards of the environment AND use fossil fuels responsibly. The idea that we must choose a leftist political path to atone for “carbon sins” is a grand false premise as well.

Comments are closed