Pruitt Doesn't Know Carbon Dioxide Causes Climate Change!

Scott Pruitt is turning the EPA into a propaganda arm of the fossil fuel industry.

He's already staffed the agency with climate change deniers - and now he's started repeating Big Oil's lies live on television.

Yesterday, for example, he told CNBC that he doesn't believe that carbon dioxide causes climate change.

"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."

This is exactly what Henry Wallace was talking about in 1944 when he wrote an editorial in the New York Times about American Fascists. He described these American fascists as people who are

"... spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest... [whose] final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

Isn't that exactly what we're seeing here with the Trump administration, in particular the EPA?


deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 years 15 weeks ago

"...I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest


lindsncal's picture
lindsncal 5 years 15 weeks ago

The biggest scam.....Trump and his cabinet claim they need more information about climate change they defund all of their sources that give it to well as the climate satellites that report on it.

kentw's picture
kentw 5 years 15 weeks ago

Head-in-the-sand willful ignorance. Pruitt can't allow himself to believe what is plain and has even been established experimentally on a small scale, but it would be very awkward for his fossil fuel masters. It is not just climate; Pruitt also needs to account for other phenomena such as the acidification of the oceans from acid rain caused by sulfur and nitrogen oxides from burning fossil fuels. This also presents a long-term serious problem.

I don't know the answer to Scotty11's question about a quick turnaround, but I suspect the answer is that there will no quick turnaround. Once these green house gases are in the upper atmosphere, they'll remain there for quite a while. I hope I'm mistaken.

leighmf's picture
leighmf 5 years 15 weeks ago

I dare Scott Pruitt to eat a plate of fried bass caught in Everglades Conservation Area 3.

Oldskoold's picture
Oldskoold 5 years 15 weeks ago

Absolutely perfect description of the "Trumpian" anomaly..... It is trajic.

cccccttttt 5 years 15 weeks ago

No wailing nor nashing of teeth will change minds about global warming.

The fix will only come when a cheap clean energy source makes carbon based fuels extremely cost ineffective.


Scotty11 5 years 15 weeks ago

So, if Pruitt doesn't believe Carbon Dioxide causes climate change, what does? Or does he deny the existence of such?

On a related note: does a quick turnaround come from lowering Carbon Dioxide emissions? or from reducing Methane emissions (30x more potent as a 'heat trapping' gas)? Human caused sources, such as livestock (I'm thinking giant feedlots here), and landfills account for over 60% of the emissions.

RFord's picture
RFord 5 years 15 weeks ago

Trump in perverting the US government. He used rich people who will get huge tax breaks, not so rich people that don't know any better, and Putin to get elected. Now he's working for the rich (including himself) and Putin (who is also rich). All of his appointments are for the purpose of enriching the rich, including himself. Each has a role to play. Pruitt's role is to relax anti-pollution standards, thus giving rich people in the fossil fuel, chemical, and manufacturing business the ability to make more money by not spending money to safeguard against polluting. Pruitt is just one dangerous part of crazy man, Trump's plan to make America work for only the rich (Great Again). Trump is a high functioning fruitcake that will not likely last out the year as president. I say he'll be out by June the 1st. My wife says May 1st. There's a betting site taking bets on when he gets out of office. Let's just hope that it's before he has a chance to leave too wide of a path of destruction behind him and that the next guy, Pence is not as bad.

RFord's picture
RFord 5 years 15 weeks ago

Deepspace! Great comparison!

Trump, Pruitt, and the rest of the cabinet compared to a low life boxing promoter taking advantage of a poor boxer.

2tomsturn 5 years 15 weeks ago

I suspect Trump is to stupid to know what all he is doing and their affects.

I think he wants to do what Bannon, Pence and pals tell him to do so they will praise him, telling him what a great job he is doing in implementing the GOP agenda.

Of coarse anything that puts money in his pocket is great, so soon he will be as wealthy as he claimes he is.

RFord's picture
RFord 5 years 15 weeks ago

Yes, Scotty11, a turnaround would come from lowering carbon and methane emissions to a safe level but it may not be quick. Global warming has been accelerating and you can hardly turn on the news nowadays without hearing about floods, wildfires, tornados, droughts, record high temperatures, record snowfalls, or some other catastrophe. The thing is, Pruitt can believe in human caused climate change and say that he doesn't in order to improve his position in politics or increase the balance in his bank account. He is a liar just like his boss.

Hephaestus's picture
Hephaestus 5 years 15 weeks ago

RFord ... then who do you get?

The puppeteer?

You will never find the hand

Hephaestus's picture
Hephaestus 5 years 15 weeks ago

Death will become the extremely wealthy

Devaluation and international debt will remove their wealth

deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 years 15 weeks ago

kentw, Scotty11, and RFord are absolutely right about just how dangerous ocean acidification coupled with greenhouse gases is, especially after methane explodes into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is the trigger; methane is the bullet -- estimated by climate scientists to be thirty times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. Once CO2 drives up the global average temperature to critical levels, massive amounts of methane molecules (CH4), presently encased in ice crystals called methane hydrate, will bubble up from the oceans, permafrost, and, to a lesser degree, certain types of rock sentiments, such as sandstone and siltstone, causing the planet to get even hotter -- much more quickly than the rate of CO2 release -- in terms of geological time scales.

This relatively sudden methane burst will rapidly increase ocean and atmospheric temperatures to unimaginable levels. The rate of increase, however, will be the real killer. Most sea and land species will go extinct, because they won't have enough time to evolve and adapt to such extreme temperatures.

The Permian mass extinction 250 million years ago was the worst of the five in Earth's history. Up to ninety-six percent of life in the sea perished, and seventy percent on land. Our present rate of carbon release and temperature increase is on a trajectory that is markedly steeper than the Permian event. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that all complex life forms will perish in what is being dubbed as the "Anthropocene" sixth mass extinction.

In the far distant future, if archeologists and historians (perhaps aliens) dig deep enough to excavate the rubble of our civilization and figure out what happened, Mensa Man, the "genius" tax evader, and his tribe of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers, will likely be the main exhibit in a museum dedicated to the worst evildoers of all time.

lindsncal (#2): Excellent point! These illogical, self-serving bastards are so damn shallow and transparent!

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team 5 years 15 weeks ago

We need to educate the world using only 6% of the land mass of the USA you can grow all the energy needs of your country using HEMP takes in 4 times the amount of carbon dioxide than trees . Make the skies blue again !!!


Can subsitite for so many non rewneable resources

End Depedance on fossil fuels . Dependance is Humanitys Achillies heal.

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team 5 years 15 weeks ago

The basic question facing mankind is when do the interests of the few supersceed the interests of the many ?

Kend's picture
Kend 5 years 15 weeks ago

Am I the only one who is sick of watching billions and probably now trillions of dollars spent on "global warming" to see absolutely no reduction in tempature or green house gasses. Do we not have to ask our selves where all of this money is going if we see no results. I believe that money would have been much better spent on health care or education. For thirty years I have heard the oceans are rising yet they haven't changed. It is time we had a serous debate on this and get undisputed facts from both sides.

Willie W's picture
Willie W 5 years 15 weeks ago

Global Warming was decades in the making, and reversing it will take decades. Trivial attempts don't count. From the movie Avatar; "They're just pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain."

stopgap's picture
stopgap 5 years 15 weeks ago

Obviously to climate change deniers who question the effects of greenhouse gasses, the debate on wether it is safe to leave your dog or young child closed up in an automobile on a hot day is still debatable.

Kend's picture
Kend 5 years 15 weeks ago

Stopgap. No one is denying climate change. The climate will always change. No one is denying that humans pollution has something to do with it. What is in question is, is the world still warming, there is a big difference between the two and what percentage of the warming is caused by human behaviour. Also is the earth warming a bad thing. If you live in Canada, China, or Russia I would say no. Throwing billions out to the Solindra's of the world isn't working very well. For those of us old enough to remember not to long ago we where all going to freeze to death because of global cooling. That was proven science at the time as well.

stopgap's picture
stopgap 5 years 15 weeks ago

If you want to argue about the positive outcomes of leaving your children and pets locked up in a car on a hot day, that's your business. Personally, I going with the 97% of the scientific community that has studied the effects of climate change extensively over the last 40 years.

But who am I to disagree with the party that, in their infinite wisdom, saw fit to hand over the codes to the nuclear arsenal to a mentally unstable, pathologically lying, thin-skinned hypocrite?

deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 years 15 weeks ago

The scientific debate is over. Every lame, confused argument to the contrary is the easily debunked "misrepresentation of the facts" disseminated by fossil-fuel industry propagandists and their well-connected, so-called scientists who sold their souls for the riches of the world, or by the odd-ball huckster trying to make a quick buck on the latest conspiracy book du jour hawked to the fringe.

Those stubborn few who still deny the deadly seriousness of rapid global warming (ACD -- anthropogenic climate disruption) and the incontrovertible fact that it absolutely is caused exclusively by human activity -- burning fossil fuels -- should ask themselves this very simple question: "If I'm so unwilling to believe the solid consensus of 97% (Actually, it's more like 99%.) of climate scientists, why would I so readily believe the 3% (1%) in the pocket of the industry?

No answer ...just the chirping of crickets.

But then, logic, common sense, and truth never were the currencies of the gullible in Lie Lie Land.

Kend's picture
Kend 5 years 15 weeks ago

Yes deepspace the scientific debate is over on climate change the climate has been changing on earth for millions of years and it always will. The science still isn't settled on the warming part and how much humans are responsible for. Science is never settled. "Be careful when you follow the masses. Sometimes the M is silent"

deepspace's picture
deepspace 5 years 15 weeks ago

Kend (#23):
You are obfuscating the issue and misconstruing the words. Of course the climate changes; that's not the point. Of course science is an ongoing learning process; that's not the point either. And we are not talking about following what the masses may or may not believe. The laws of physics are not dependent upon belief systems or opinions.

The primary issue facing humankind and all life on Earth is that the climate is rapidly changing toward a most terrible future. We are fast approaching a tipping point when we will lose our ability to mitigate impending ecological disaster, very possibly the worst in the history of organic evolution.

You are simply wrong. There is just no other way to put it. Global warming is all too real, and humans are totally responsible.

That debate is over! Our best scientific minds, using the most advanced tools and methodolgies available, have reached a nearly unanimous consensus. They are as sure about human-induced global warming as they are about the effects of gravity. Science still does not understand exactly what gravity is, but there is no debate about the reality of it.

There also is no serious debate about the only real solution, which is to quit pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as soon as humanly possible before it's too late. There are no other viable options in the time left before the tipping point. They don't know exactly when that will happen, but they know it's dangerously close.

In science, ignorance is not bliss.

k. allen's picture
k. allen 5 years 15 weeks ago

(Kend) - #20)

"What is in question is, is the world still warming, ..."

I'm not well informed, but my guess would be yes, the earth is warming ...

and cooling - simultaneously, in perpetuity ....

My questions would be:

What part do humans play in serving - or disrupting - the complex dynamic equilibrium that compels those changes?

And, what can I, as one human - or we, as communities - do about it?

I would suggest there is great similarity, and dynamic common ground between natural earth/climate cycles of change and human generated changes? Singling out percentages of global warming caused by human behavior might contribute to proof that something is out of whack - that something needs to change - still just one aspect of the whole equation.

If that process is necessary to changes in law, finance and standards of practice in the industries, in the time it takes to complete that analysis, it would serve the whole economy, and quality of life all around to go ahead and work on changing those things we can impact - domestically, and personally.

Meanwhile industrial waste continues to mount.

And time _is_ of the essence.

Just look at the garbage produced by industrial society ... the detritus of war ... nuclear waste ... sewage from factory farms ... untold volumes of toxic pollution from industrial institutions - and their products - pouring into the air ... into the waters ... into the lands, and everything that lives and grows there ... ((or not.))

Does anyone really have any doubts about the need for humans to change what we do, and how we do it? Why waste time debating what percentage of that change is for humans to do?

I don't know what controls changes in the earth and climate.
I only know I have to live with them (((or not))).

It is clear to me that human waste - industrial and domestic - is one thing I can at least work on - starting with my own life and choices - like not using products from industries proliferating toxic waste ..., maybe even picking up my own garbage and cleaning up my own mess.

"Also is the earth warming a bad thing. If you live in Canada, China, or Russia I would say no. Throwing billions out to the Solindra's of the world isn't working very well."

... uh, ...,

Why those three countries? Because they have cold climates that humans could live in more comfortably if it warmed up a bit ...leading to the conclusion that investing in alternative energy is futile?

I wonder if the root of the problem has more to do with humans' lack of awareness, flexibility and mobility - neglecting inborn energies and forces - as in we establish ourselves in stationary habitats and expect the world to turn around us ... that seems out of rhythm with the ebb and flow of nature's waves ... a disruption of global symbiosis.

"For those of us old enough to remember not to long ago we where all going to freeze to death because of global cooling. That was proven science at the time as well."

Yes, that reinforces awareness that science is constantly redefining itself, as more is revealed. The problem comes when industries, societal paradigms and human minds are not flexible and open to change required to keep pace with evolving sciences and awareness as we grow ((or not.))

All the more reason to pull off the blinders wherever we can.

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team 5 years 15 weeks ago

Kend the real question is who are we and what kind of world do we want to live in?

If we want to keep the earths temperature stable for humanity to thrive and evolve we might be better keeping it within certain perameters to allow us to do that.

The earth does not belong to the rich and powerful, the ones who are exploiting the earths resources and driving the use of fossil fuels and polluting our bodies and lifes precious planet. We are treating life in a dispicable fashion with little or no regard to the outcomes of our choices. In a cause and effect universe you may find the Earth our Mother will become uninhabitable for humans if we continue down this path.

The choice is always ours we can begin to halt the melting of the snowflake and create a world not just for the rich and powerfull but for the highest good of all . Remember conciousness considers consequence. We have to raise conciousness to change conciousness .

The answer to halting man made global warming is follow the money .Eliminate money make it all totally transparent and visible .Nothing changes appropriate behaviour faster than the light of public scrutiny .


BRUCE CARROLL 5 years 15 weeks ago

"I have squandered my resistance ..."

I'd forgotten how these words so encapsulates our times. Are we faced with voters who are punch drunk fighters, so beaten down by the times, that they "took some comfort" from a whore in Trump Towers?

BRUCE CARROLL 5 years 15 weeks ago

Shouldn't the President be forced to given the trademark on his own name? We are supplying the brand name with an implied presidential seal of approval. Is it so implausible that he could legally change his first name to President and be known for ever as President Trump?

Hephaestus's picture
Hephaestus 5 years 15 weeks ago

Facing the facts regarding the "in your face" climate changes will never be addressed by anyone involved in the current fascist slither

There is no leader on this earth yet that will lead humanity to address these matters

Kindly remember that abuse and disregard for our planet is also worldwide and, to reiterate not just a western phenomena

Our local movements and efforts appear futile to change anything

Most of my contacts are squabbling over celebrities and arguing with each other on a variety of social medai platforms walking into oncoming traffic with a cell phone in hand gazing at a driver as though he just landed from mars and HE is in the wrong place

Concepts such as 'common sense', 'self respect', 'manners', 'consideration', 'self reliance', 'honour of elders" and so on appear to have been subconsciously or deliberately removed from human psyche


Kilosqrd's picture
Kilosqrd 5 years 14 weeks ago

The only people that I see in denial are the climate change alarmists. We, mankind, will be extracting fossil fuels from the earth for many generations to come. That is a fact, and no amount of alarmism is going to change that fact. Better get used to it.


Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Never one to shy away from the truth, Thom Hartmann’s collected works are inspiring, wise, and compelling. His work lights the way to a better America."
Van Jones, cofounder of and author of The Green Collar Economy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Tom Hayden, author of The Long Sixties and director, Peace and Justice Resource Center.