• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Is the EPA’s public debate over climate science dead? Maybe not

by David Wojick, Ph.D.
March 19, 2018, 9:35 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
5

The ever-green New York Times is trying to report that the climate change Red Team exercise proposed by EPA Administrator Pruitt is dead. I say “trying” because if you read their long article carefully it may not be so.

What is really going on is a bit of a political struggle within the Trump Administration. What eventually happens remains to be seen.

Pruitt has been talking about the Red Team exercise for a long time now. The idea is to have an official public debate over climate science, between alarmists and skeptics.

As Pruitt repeatedly says, Americans have a right to know about this deep debate, which was carefully hidden from view by the Obama Administration.

According to the NYT, the Trump White House chief of staff is trying to stop the Red Team exercise.

Here is the NYT article’s very first sentence. While long it clearly says the effort is killed:

“John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued President Trump even as it set off alarm bells among his top advisers.”

My take is that this is an election year and the Trumpers are focused on showing in November that they have helped, not hurt, the Republican Party. That was the focus of the State of the Union speech.

“Don’t rock the boat in an election year” is a political maxim and a Red Team debate would certainly rock a lot of political boats. But the climate change issue is far too important to sweep under the political rug.

In fact, the NYT piece mentions toward the very end that Pruitt may well be moving ahead with the exercise. They say this:

“In the weeks since that meeting, however, Mr. Pruitt said the red team, blue team debates were still under consideration. In January, he told Congress that a report in E & E News, a news organization focusing on energy and the environment that first reported that the White House had killed the plan, was false. White House opposition to the debates was “untrue,” he said under questioning by a senator.”

What they fail to mention is that Pruitt and the EPA do not answer to the President. EPA is what is called an “independent agency,” like the Federal Reserve.

It is not part of the Trump Cabinet and it does not take orders from the White House chief of staff. So Pruitt can, and may well, go ahead with the Red Team exercise. He might even wait until after the November elections.

One wonders how a journalist writing this last paragraph could have written the first. Clearly, the real story is about the disagreement between Pruitt and Kelly.

Maybe the NYT “buried the lead” because they preferred the possibly false story that the Red Team is dead.

The NYT article also talks about having to involve the whole range of federal science agencies in a Red Team exercise, which would certainly then fall under the White House jurisdiction. But in reality, EPA is the only federal agency that is truly under the climate-change gun.

Pruitt is facing the Obama-era EPA false finding that CO2 endangers our health and welfare.

This so-called “endangerment finding” requires him to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which it most certainly is not.

This forced false move is by far the biggest thing going on at EPA. No other federal agency is facing anything remotely like this, so it makes perfect sense if EPA alone runs the Red Team exercise.

In fact, the NYT acknowledges this extreme situation, but in passing as usual. They say this of the endangerment finding and the Red Team:

“That finding is the legal backbone for almost all federal climate policy and requires the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in some manner. A government critique of climate science could lay the groundwork for challenging the endangerment finding in court.”

So all things considered it would make perfect sense if EPA Administrator Pruitt told White House chief of staff Kelly “You’re not the boss of me” and went ahead with the Red Team exercise.

Let’s hope that he does, even if it means waiting until after the November elections. Climate change alarmism is far too dangerous to simply ignore on political grounds.

Read more at CFACT

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. Amber says:
    8 years ago

    Reveal the Wizard of Oz in the climate fraud . Not going to happen .
    Haven’t we seen the same polarization play out in USA politics ?
    The eco -left don’t care if the facts don’t back up their propaganda .
    They want what they want because they just do .
    As Gerry says the “debate ” would be over in about a hour .
    Climate models (which in fact aren’t climate models at all ) were used to justify a con, a hoodwink by interests that knew they would be laughed out of the room if couldn’t point to some “scientific ” proof . So they bought it thinking that would be enough to seal the deal . Wrong, people started questioning the “science ” and over time the scary model projections of doom turned out to be heavily biased not surprisingly in one direction . Hmm . Lets see now blow a $trillion dollars of money you don’t have to solve a non -issue
    that couldn’t even be solved by human intervention in any meaningful way . Is the climate not going to change regardless and are humans sincerely deluded enough to think we are going to shape the climate as an eco-globalist committee sees fit ?
    Setting aside the fact the “science ” is illogical isn’t it strange though that a $trillion dollars can be expected to be spent and no serious cost benefit is even done ?
    The models produced to justify the heist are proven crap . Case closed .

  2. Sonnyhill says:
    8 years ago

    One way to prime the debate would be to corner the alarmists with their “global warming” roots. Why did they rename the threat to climate change but remain focused on proving a warming trend? Neither warming or change are dangerous, so where did the endangerment come from?

  3. Choey says:
    8 years ago

    I doubt the alarmists would even show up to a real debate.

  4. Gerry says:
    8 years ago

    “Is the EPA’s public debate over climate science dead?”

    No. But the media would like us to think so.

    Again. There is no science involved. The debate can be over in less than an hour. Have the “Deniers” list 70 years of “Climate Gate’s” dire predictions. Then the “Climate Change” crowd can site every prediction they have been correct on.

  5. Spurwing Plover says:
    8 years ago

    So who still realy beleives anything from the New York Pravda anymore? If everybody beleived this liberal rag they wiuld think the Earth if Flat just like those wackos from thw Flat Earth Society do

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • un censorship complexUN Censorship And The Manufactured Climate Crisis: How Global Elites Are Silencing Dissent
    Jan 19, 2026
    United Nations pushes censorship, embracing 'invented' climate science while silencing dissent and targeting free speech. […]
  • decades of climate panic left abandonedHow The Perpetual Climate Panic Machine Finally Collapsed
    Jan 19, 2026
    Decades of climate doom-slinging failed—voters aren’t buying it, and the media’s fear machine has finally run dry. […]
  • climate defiance baseball fieldHollywood Stars Funding Radical Climate Activists Who Stormed Congressional Baseball Game, Tax Filings Show
    Jan 19, 2026
    Tax filing show Hollywood stars bankrolling Climate Defiance, the extreme radical group behind protests like storming the Congressional Baseball Game. […]
  • temp map bouysNOAA Calls 2025 Third-Warmest Year On Record — The Science Doesn’t Add Up
    Jan 19, 2026
    NOAA says 2025 was third-warmest, but sloppy land data and missing ocean measurements make the claim meaningless. […]
  • fuvahmulah island maldivesNew Scientist Misses The Science On ‘Sinking Pacific Islands’
    Jan 16, 2026
    Real-world data show many Pacific atolls are stable or growing, contradicting claims of inevitable sea-level submergence. […]
  • hochul energy cliffNew York’s Climate Act Goes Nuclear: Bold Promises, Zero Progress
    Jan 16, 2026
    New York’s Climate Act promises bold energy goals, but seven years in any progress is nonexistent and nuclear plans lag way behind. […]
  • Global disaster counts remain flat over 25 years, despite rising CO2 and record temperaturesA Climatologist Asks: Where Are All The Climate-Related Disasters?
    Jan 16, 2026
    Despite record CO2 and global temperatures, climate-related disasters haven’t increased—what the data really show. […]
  • miliband offshore wind ahoy mateyThe Climate Scaremongers: ‘Record’ Offshore Wind Auction Will Add Billions To UK Power Bills
    Jan 16, 2026
    Despite “record” claims, offshore wind contracts rely on heavy subsidies that will push UK electricity bills even higher. […]
  • Twenty Years Later, An Inconvenient Truth Fails to Hold UpTwenty Years On, Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Thoroughly Debunked
    Jan 15, 2026
    Twenty years later, Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ predictions, from Kilimanjaro to glaciers, have failed to materialize. […]
  • bbcBBC Pushes 12% Pay Cut Claim Built On Hypothetical Models, Not Actual Data
    Jan 15, 2026
    BBC claims climate change is cutting U.S. pay by 12%. A meteorologist shows why the data tells a very different story. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky