Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by apacheguy, Nov 9, 2016.
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition
M.Sc. from the London School of Economics. 
B.A. from Colorado College. 
Myron Ebell is the director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and director of Freedom Action, a “web-based grassroots activist organization loosely affiliated with CEI.” He is also the chair of the Cooler Heads Coalition. , 
According to an article in Vanity Fair, “Though he likes to bash scientists for working outside their degreed fields, Ebell, it turns out, isn't a scientist at all. He majored in philosophy at the University of California in San Diego, then studied political theory at the London School of Economics and history at Cambridge.” 
In March 2010, the Financial Times called Mr. Ebell “one of America's most prominent climate-change skeptics.” In July 2009, the Business Insider's Green Sheet named him third in its list of the Ten Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics and commented that “Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community.” 
Speaking at private, undisclosed meetings held by the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) in Colorado, Ebell urged the GOP attorneys general to continue their effort to push back against ExxonMobil investigation led by NY AG Eric Schneiderman:
“So what does the other side do?” Ebell said. “Well, the first thing they try to do is try to change reality. They try to change the facts. So they try to reinterpret the data… What a number of the attorneys general here today have done is support our rights to free speech and freedom of association…we are very grateful and I think it had a big impact.” 
“I think he's [the Pope] very ill-informed and he is ill-judged in doing this [climate change encyclical].” 
“The policies being promoted are insane… If you believe energy poverty is a good thing, you should support controls on carbon emissions. But most of the world disagrees with that.” 
“Every interview I do, when I'm asked about scientific issues, I say I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just giving you the informed layman's perspective. […]” 
In an October 2006 BBC interview, Ebell pointed out that ExxonMobil would probably not fund the CEI if it changed its stance on global warming. 
BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?
Ebbel: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate…
BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?
Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which… our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people's daily lives.
BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you for taking a different view on, say for example climate change.
Ebell: I suppose that's right. We develop our policies and then we try to find funding.
“We've always wanted to get the science on trial […] we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law […] this could work.” 
“[A]s previous studies have concluded, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are probably thickening rather than melting.” 
“Kyoto is dead and has been dead, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't done some real damage and won't continue to do some real damage,” “If global warming turns out to be a problem, which I doubt, it won't be solved by making ourselves poorer through energy rationing.” “It will be solved through building resiliency and capability into society and through long-term technological innovation and transformation.” 
See: Myron Ebell
Merchant of Doubt
Oh geez, the whining is starting early.
Stick a fork in U.S., we are done.
I'm advocating for starting the impeachment process concurrent with the swearing in ceremony, unless someone can convince me that we cannot start it any sooner...
Looks like someone is already on the march, I'll bet one of the better paying jobs in the Trump administration will be National Guardsmen. Coal miners turned into protest suppressors...
Asking the government to move beyond fossil fuels is wasting time. Too thick with big oil. Even more so with trump and morons like this. Protest all you want. The answer is capitalist action. Like tesla/solar city. I hope to be back to this forum soon with a scheme where everyone can participate in propagating off-grid solar roofs. We don't need the government's help. Let's just do it ourselves.
Tesla got to where it is today through government subsidies and loans. $7500 tax credit made the purchase possible for a lot of folks.
On the flip side, oil and natural gas are also heavily subsidized and we are nowhere near to paying their true cost. The cost of burning and emitting is placed on future generations under the current scheme.
The government is still largely representative of 'us'. Trump won because there's A LOT of people out there that still reject reality and want to keep living in their pathetic fantasy where our addiction to fools fuel isn't incredibly harmful. Other than cheaper EVs and Solar I don't think there's a solution....... there's too many people that will only break their fools fuel addiction if it won't cost them anything.... it's pathetic.
“There has been a little bit of warming ... but it’s been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it’s caused by human beings or not, it’s nothing to worry about.”
That's a fairly unique position these days.
AFAIK Trump's actual position is that Global Warming is real, but not man made.
Hi. I found the video:
BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they [Exxon] give you money?
Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs
@FredLambert, I think there is a story here. Maybe if you cover this and other media pick it up as well, it could have an effect on the outcome.
You really like you, and a lot of your posts, but I want to say this so you understand something:
A LOT of people voted for Trump just because of the way you and other left people belittle their opinions. It seems to be that the liberal way of thinking is that "if you don't agree with me, I'm going to yell at you and call you stupid and make my point all that much more loudly". I'm completely with you on environmental protection, but if you don't learn to tone down the way you deliver this message, you will continue to distance the majority of the mainstream public. And frankly, you NEED the mainstream public to make your ideals reality. Stop treating them as stupid, and realize that they are intelligent people that perhaps have a different viewpoint than you.
That's where this is incredibly frustrating. I can't 'tone it down' without watering it down to the point that it's meaningless. Someone REALLY wants a Camero. They can't afford a Tesla and a Volt isn't a Camero. Am I honest with them or do I let them dig the hole deeper?
I wish more people could face reality and see our addiction to fools fuel for what it is. A necessary evil that's largely no longer necessary. If we're not honest with that reality we're screwed and it really won't matter. That's not an opinion... it's cold hard reality. And as people pitch the idea of uniting the county after a divisive election.... it's really, REALLY hard to accept a difference of opinion when you start with a difference of FACT.
Soros....who desires anarchy (makes more money that way)
If you deny man made climate change as a proven fact and serious threat you are stupid/unintelligent. Now that is not my opinion but a fact.
I didn't, and never did. I'm a conservative (not republican) but consider myself a STAUNCH environmentalist.
The problem is this:
People like yourself assume that just because someone votes republican, they agree with EVERYTHING on their agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. But for some of us, we may vote for a Republican because we have a strong belief on one particular stance they have taken on an issue, and that may in fact out-weigh everything else.
I'll throw this out there, I voted for Trump for the SOLE REASON to keep Clinton out of office. I am appalled that people would overlook that in the history of our country many individuals have been convicted of treason, hanged or shot, for far less than she did. It's an incredible example of the Oligarchy that exists with the "political elite" in this country being held to a completely different standard. Of the two choices, Trump was the only one I thought (rightly or wrongly - ONLY time will tell) that had any chance of breaking up that corrupt political machinery.
As a sidebar, I also hate being called "stupid" by the liberal "elite". I have two doctorates and by any and all definitions am more educated that most of those "elites". Just because I don't have the same view on an issue as them does not make me stupid.
Trump promises to devastate the climate...
If you read it closely, Trump's new website practically promises to devastate the climate
"Trump plans to allow corporations to haul vast amounts of carbon out of the Earth and burn it, releasing untold tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He plans to walk back the United States' international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He plans to make it easier for coal companies to poison drinking water. And he plans to ban from government any of the 97%+ of scientists who form the overwhelming consensus on climate change."
Looks to be a promising start
This isn't about whining or name calling. It is about disagreeing with Trump's policy decisions.
I happen to think the transition to clean energy can be a great way to bring America together, and address large portions of our problems simultaneously.
Clean energy won't just help satisfy those who care about climate change and the environment, it will bring jobs. Clean energy tech could and should be built here in America. If we don't build it here, China will continue to build their lead in the clean tech of the future. Even if you aren't sure about climate change, everyone agrees less pollution and smog is a good thing. Clean energy will reduce the need for foreign wars for foreign oil -- we won't have to pay trillions for these wars, and billions to support the brave veterans who are injured fighting them. Oil companies are essentially the poster boys for corruption and money in politics. Lets get them out. Our democracy will only benefit from removing their corporate and lobbying money from decision making.
So whether your most important issue is jobs, climate change, pollution, money in politics, trade, foreign wars, you can come together and find something good in transitioning to clean energy. There is great potential here, and I feel Trump will be letting it go to waste by appointing an fossil fuel industry backed, anti-science head of the EPA. Its time to find solutions that can work for everyone, and bring everyone together, and clean energy transition of one of our best choices.
That's depends on the 'issue'. That goes for the left AND the right. If someone thinks vaccines cause Autism OR climate change is a Chinese hoax OR GMO corn will kill you OR wifi causes brain tumors they've earned the label.
We've apparently entered the post-factual era... where whatever nonsense you think is true no matter how absurd needs to be respected. I respect opinions. I don't respect ignorance... I do my best to fix it. I still respect the person.
Which part of 'Climate Change is the greatest threat we face' confuses you?
Not for anyone working in or around the fossil fuel industry....