Donald Trump’s EPA Secretary disagrees with the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, on climate change. Why does this matter? Because she is a senior advisor to the president. In addition, she and the EPA chief Scott Pruitt will be meeting with each other, before meeting with President Trump to decide the future status of the United States as a member of the Paris Climate Accord.
Originally, Trump was to meet with his advisors to make a decision concerning the Paris agreement before the G7 Economic Meeting at the end of May 2017. The meeting has been postponed twice, and will not occur until after the G7.
EPA Secretary Skeptical of Climate Change
Trump’s Secretary of the EPA is skeptical of climate change. To be precise, he is skeptical of man-caused, or anthropogenic, climate change theory.
Recently, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt stated:
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.
In addition to that assessment by Pruitt, the EPA has removed all of the old climate change information from its government website. The current status is that information is being “updated.”
Ivanka and Al Gore Tag Team Trump
On the other hand, Ivanka Trump is somewhat of a climate change enthusiast. It is reported that she was responsible for the invitation of Al Gore to meet with the president on December 5, 2016.
Al Gore said of the meeting:
He was receptive to some of what I had to say, and I appreciated that… Candidate Trump made a number of statements and wrote a bunch of tweets that caused concern, but he also has other statements that at least give rise to the possibility that he and his team will take a fresh look at the reality of what we’re facing here.
It appears the president is willing to “take a fresh look” at climate change. The upcoming meeting of Ivanka and Pruitt with Trump should prove very interesting, given these opposing viewpoints.
The Political Realities of Climate Change
The raging debate over climate change; formerly known as global warming, and before that, global cooling, has been politically contentious since it began. That is the only thing both sides of the issue agree upon.
Those who are hardcore climate change supporters believe two fundamentals are true. One is that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. That is set in concrete within their arguments. Any cast of doubt about that is tantamount to becoming a “climate denier.”
Note the language used. It is not even a “climate change denier,” it is now someone so stupid as to deny that “climate” exists!
This form of scientific argument is foisted by the eminent Bill Nye, the self-proclaimed Science Guy, and others of similar brilliance.
The second fundamental belief of climate change is that a trend toward a warming climate would be harmful, indeed, disastrous to all. Films such as, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” have taught that lesson.
The Scientific Side of Climate Change
The scientific side of climate change is one based on the observation of actual temperature data. Data that show not only is the earth not warming now, it has not been in the last 15 years. As for the claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists support climate change, there are multiple thousands who have analyzed the actual data and disagree with the politically correct analysis, as well as the theories.
One premise of the climate change argument is that man-caused changes in the atmosphere can drastically alter the climate. To put it mildly, that is highly unlikely.
All trained scientists in the field will agree, the greatest influence upon earth’s weather is the sun, period. Only the sun, or a significant natural disaster, could cause climate change enough to harm the planet. Short of a nuclear catastrophe, that is. Hopefully, no one is advocating that.
Greenpeace Founder Disputes Climate Change
Knowledgeable scientists who dispute the climate change argument also question the idea that a slight increase in temperature would necessarily be harmful. Ecologist Patrick Moore, Ph.D., stated the following to U.S. senators, February 25, 2014:
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
Moreover, he doubts whether warming would be harmful:
It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
Moore also happens to be one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, the international ecology advocacy group. He left the organization years ago when they became politicized leftward. Their current support of climate change is one result of the politicization.
One of the reasons Moore claims a warmer climate would be beneficial is the resulting increase in agricultural production worldwide. A slightly warmer climate would open up vast areas to be farmed that cannot be today.
Warming of the Canadian plains region would open up swaths of the largest land area in North America to new agricultural development. Large areas of Russia now too cold to produce would also be available for planting. A warming trend due to climate change could be very beneficial.
Trump Should Listen to Pruitt
During his campaign, Trump indicated he would pull the US out of the Paris Accord. He currently is hinting to being open to the climate change advocacy of Ivanka.
With apologies to Ivanka, in this instance, the EPA Secretary is the one to heed in the upcoming meeting. The reality of the science is on his side.
Opinion News by D.T. Osborn
Edited by Cathy Milne
AXIOS: Ivanka to meet EPA head before crucial Paris climate meeting
CNN: EPA removes climate change information from website
CNN: Trump administration delays Paris climate agreement decision
THE DAILY CALLER: Al Gore Opens Up About His Meeting With Trump
DAILY MAIL: Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is ‘no scientific proof’ climate change is manmade
Los Angeles Times: Scott Pruitt undermines the EPA with anti-scientific ignorance
Red State: Bill Nye Says That We Should Throw “Climate Deniers” In Jail.
ThinkProgress: As Trump waffles on Paris agreement, over 200 investors speak out
The Washington Post: Two experts resign from EPA posts to protest the agency’s science committee shake-up
Featured and Top Image Courtesy of Paul. A. Fagan’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License