5 ms·

Has anyone ever got Pruitt in front of a camera and asked him the following question? "Contaminants in our air and water cause X billion dollars of added healt

Has anyone ever got Pruitt in front of a camera and asked him the following question? "Contaminants in our air and water cause X billion dollars of added health care costs and lost productivity to Americans every year. Rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns cause Y billion dollars of damage to real estate and crop yields every year. What is the EPA going to do to control these losses?" I really want this anti-science conservative to answer the question about what he really cares about: the wallets of people who own lots of things. His side doesn't care about "good science" or objective truth, and they don't care about the public's well being. They care about money above all else and I think that's where the discussion should be focused.

jackmott 9y ago
> extreme weather patterns cause Y billion dollars of damage We have no idea what global warming related Y is yet, so we can't give him that number. But Pruitt isn't someone who is going to listen to reason anyway, he is paid to protect the fossil fuel industry.
- metalliqaz 9y ago
  I take your point, but I'm not really talking global warming here. I'm just going with the stuff everyone can see right now. Rising sea levels, drought, hurricanes, etc. The idea being that you get Pruitt to respond without having to invoke the buzzwords that shut everything down.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    The talking points have moved from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault" in the last decade or so. The response would just be "the science isn't settled on whether humans caused that" and stuff like "plants need CO2, so maybe it's good!"
    - metalliqaz 9y ago
      Strangely enough, there seems to be a believe among non-science-literate liberals that CO2 is a poison. Obviously this is not the case and plants can increase biomass like gangbusters with extra CO2, as long as they have the sunshine and water. There might even be a measurable difference in certain crops. I imagine that would be little consolation after losing major fisheries to the secondary effects of ocean acidification.
      - jackmott 9y ago
        >plants can increase biomass like gangbusters with extra CO2, as long as they have the sunshine and water. There might even be a measurable difference in certain crops. Not universally true, some plants will be negatively affected by the co2. Either way its not the case that we are going to get amazing plants or that plants will grow to solve the situation.
    - anderspitman 9y ago
      This. They've started saying things like, "The earth goes through natural cycles. How do we know this isn't normal? There weren't any humans around to cause the last ice age." Honestly I can't event say I completely disagree with that logic. But for me I'm not willing to risk being wrong about climate change.
joshuaheard 9y ago
Critiquing a hypothesis is part of the scientific process, not "anti-science". If the science is sound, it will withstand scrutiny. I have followed this debate closely, and I haven't seen anyone on either side put forth detailed policy proposals other than voluntary carbon caps. In my opinion, advanced technology will solve this problem before any major policy changes are needed.
- orf 9y ago
  Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. Republicans lie about scientific consensus on climate change all the time. Do you think, it by some miracle this review is not biased, that they will suddenly accept those findings? Vested interests have vested interests. Reviews of publications doesn't change that.
  - maratd 9y ago
    > Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. The entire point of scrutiny is to discredit and of course it's going to be biased. That's the point. If the science is solid, it'll withstand the scrutiny. And if it's not, it won't. Any kind of scrutiny or inquiry should be encouraged, regardless of where it comes from.
    - orf 9y ago
      In a bubble, sure. In reality people still believe the thoroughly scrutinized paper linking vaccines to autism. Once the news cycle has chewed through the "EPA says climate change is not real" headlines and that's soaked in, it will be regurgitated for years to come. No matter how biased the scrutiny.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion, that's the domain of journalists who are expected to do their homework. Biased scrutiny is the best kind. Scrutiny needs to occur and I would rather the people doing it sincerely believe that community at large is wrong rather than someone playing devil's advocate. They should make the best possible case against climate change they can.
klipt 9y ago
> what he really cares about: the wallets of people who own lots of things He only cares if those people pay him off, like the fossil fuel industry did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
triangleman 9y ago
X is his job. Y is a question of science that he is working on right now, as the article shows.
beams_of_light 9y ago
I think the reality is that those things do not impact immediate-term profits the way environmental regulations do, so it won't help sway anyone who sides with Pruitt and the rest of the Trump administration on climate change.

jackmott 9y ago

> extreme weather patterns cause Y billion dollars of damage We have no idea what global warming related Y is yet, so we can't give him that number. But Pruitt isn't someone who is going to listen to reason anyway, he is paid to protect the fossil fuel industry.

metalliqaz 9y ago
I take your point, but I'm not really talking global warming here. I'm just going with the stuff everyone can see right now. Rising sea levels, drought, hurricanes, etc. The idea being that you get Pruitt to respond without having to invoke the buzzwords that shut everything down.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  The talking points have moved from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault" in the last decade or so. The response would just be "the science isn't settled on whether humans caused that" and stuff like "plants need CO2, so maybe it's good!"
  - metalliqaz 9y ago
    Strangely enough, there seems to be a believe among non-science-literate liberals that CO2 is a poison. Obviously this is not the case and plants can increase biomass like gangbusters with extra CO2, as long as they have the sunshine and water. There might even be a measurable difference in certain crops. I imagine that would be little consolation after losing major fisheries to the secondary effects of ocean acidification.
    - jackmott 9y ago
      >plants can increase biomass like gangbusters with extra CO2, as long as they have the sunshine and water. There might even be a measurable difference in certain crops. Not universally true, some plants will be negatively affected by the co2. Either way its not the case that we are going to get amazing plants or that plants will grow to solve the situation.
  - anderspitman 9y ago
    This. They've started saying things like, "The earth goes through natural cycles. How do we know this isn't normal? There weren't any humans around to cause the last ice age." Honestly I can't event say I completely disagree with that logic. But for me I'm not willing to risk being wrong about climate change.

joshuaheard 9y ago

Critiquing a hypothesis is part of the scientific process, not "anti-science". If the science is sound, it will withstand scrutiny. I have followed this debate closely, and I haven't seen anyone on either side put forth detailed policy proposals other than voluntary carbon caps. In my opinion, advanced technology will solve this problem before any major policy changes are needed.

orf 9y ago
Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. Republicans lie about scientific consensus on climate change all the time. Do you think, it by some miracle this review is not biased, that they will suddenly accept those findings? Vested interests have vested interests. Reviews of publications doesn't change that.
- maratd 9y ago
  > Unless you he scrutiny is biased and meant to discredit the science that is. The entire point of scrutiny is to discredit and of course it's going to be biased. That's the point. If the science is solid, it'll withstand the scrutiny. And if it's not, it won't. Any kind of scrutiny or inquiry should be encouraged, regardless of where it comes from.
  - orf 9y ago
    In a bubble, sure. In reality people still believe the thoroughly scrutinized paper linking vaccines to autism. Once the news cycle has chewed through the "EPA says climate change is not real" headlines and that's soaked in, it will be regurgitated for years to come. No matter how biased the scrutiny.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      We don't really care about laypeople in this discussion, that's the domain of journalists who are expected to do their homework. Biased scrutiny is the best kind. Scrutiny needs to occur and I would rather the people doing it sincerely believe that community at large is wrong rather than someone playing devil's advocate. They should make the best possible case against climate change they can.

klipt 9y ago

> what he really cares about: the wallets of people who own lots of things He only cares if those people pay him off, like the fossil fuel industry did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

triangleman 9y ago

X is his job. Y is a question of science that he is working on right now, as the article shows.

beams_of_light 9y ago

I think the reality is that those things do not impact immediate-term profits the way environmental regulations do, so it won't help sway anyone who sides with Pruitt and the rest of the Trump administration on climate change.