By metmike - July 6, 2018, 5:17 p.m.
Like Reply

I was very sad to see Scott Pruitt go. He was a good I feel compelled to defend him. 

As an environmentalist and atmospheric scientist, I strongly supported most of his actions, many were designed to cut costs, stop waste and especially, cut down on corruption in the EPA(one of the most corrupt organizations ever).

His views lined up with mine on climate change.

I got this email below earlier today.

Click for optimum view  |  Forward to a fri

Click for optimum view  |  F
orward to a friend  |  Update profile 
end  |  Update profile 

Reformer Scott Pruitt resigns

The radical Greens successfully mounted enough scurrilous rumors and stories to convince EPA reformer Scott Pruitt to resign.
We thank Scott Pruitt for his courageous work to undo decades of fraud and faulty science at EPA.
Pruitt threatened the cult of the hard Green-Left and the profits of corporations raking in cash from federal subsidies and mandates. He threatened too much dogma and profiteering to be allowed to serve.
As The Wall Street Journal explained in an editorial:
The shame is that Mr. Trump is losing his bravest deregulator. Mr. Pruitt started to roll back the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan that attempted to re-engineer the economy with little effect on climate change. He clamped down on the “sue and settle” racket that allows environmental groups to impose policy through consent degrees. He moved to redefine the Waters of the United States rule that let EPA regulate ponds and potholes. Mr. Pruitt also sought to require more honest cost-benefit analysis, and he updated advisory science boards that have been stacked with members who receive EPA grants.
Those hunting Pruitt were unable to touch him on the substance of his reforms.
  • When Obama's EPA labeled CO2 (the gas you just exhaled) a pollutant, was it following legislative intent? No. 
  • Should EPA disregard cost-benefit analysis in drafting regulations? No. 
  • Should EPA advisory boards be the exclusive domains of Green campaigners and rent-seekers?  No. 
  • Should EPA determine your fate while keeping the science it relied on secret? No. 
  • Are puddles on farms and backyards "navigable waters" of the United States?  Of course not. 
When Pruitt set out to reform these and other instances of EPA overreach he placed a target on his back.  Those seeking to take him down resorted to scurrilous tactics. They magnified and exaggerated every detail of Pruitt's existence and EPA's operations and fed them into a media campaign.  "Look at all the controversy!"  They proclaimed.
In the end they attacked the man for trying to make an affordable move to Washington, the targeted public figure for securing his safety, and the agency head for the day-to-day complexities of managing an agency that were perfectly acceptable under Obama's appointees.
We posted a hard-hitting article on the campaign to take down Pruitt by Michael Bastasch at
EPA is an agency long out of control.  As Ronald Reagan warned us in his first inaugural address, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
It takes a special kind of courage to tackle that problem.  Pruitt's got it.  We need others with it.
Will Scott Pruitt's departure chill the determination of other Americans to take on the thankless task of government reform?
Let’s hope not.
For nature and people too,

By metmike - July 6, 2018, 5:57 p.m.
Like Reply

This was an example of why I supported Scott Pruitt:


Ending secret science at EPA


Administrator Pruitt initiates overdue changes to bring transparency, integrity to rulemaking

"Incredibly, EPA modelers also claimed they can accurately forecast global temperatures, climate and weather, technological advances, economic development, living standards – and damages to global civilizations and ecosystems from US carbon dioxide emissions – for the next 300 years! Moreover, in the real world, the benefits of using carbon-based fuels and improving crop, forest and grassland growth via higher atmospheric CO2 levels outweigh hypothesized costs by at least 50-to-1 to as much as 500-to-1.

Deceptive, politicized, policy-driven “science” like this pervaded EPA regulatory actions for too many years. Reaction to Mr. Pruitt’s corrective actions show how poorly informed his critics can be."

By cliff-e - July 6, 2018, 6:15 p.m.
Like Reply

Pruitt was a pawn for the oil and coal co.'s and Big Money to whom Trump is indebted to. Wheeler will be more of the same.

By metmike - July 6, 2018, 10:09 p.m.
Like Reply


I've been accused of being the same way..........having my views because big oil and coal are paying me. 

Do you think that its "possible" that a person could be knowledgeable, objective and also believe that CO2 is a beneficial gas which is greening the planet more than its doing anything else?

I think that if the entire truth were told, including that roughly 25% of the food that you guys produce is the result of the beneficial climate change and atmospheric fertilization from increased CO2, that every farmer on the planet would agree. 

Most climate scientists work for the government and most follow the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change's reports that come out.

The IPCC does not look for natural causes for climate change, nor does it discuss benefits. It was created by the United Nations to find human caused climate change............for a political agenda. 


Going back 150 years to a planet that was 1 degree cooler and had CO2 at less than 300 parts per million vs todays 405 ppm would result in a billion people starving within a few years and crop prices tripling. 

This is based on rock solid science/agronomy and thousands of plant growing studies. 

Why is that not being told?

We have been told about how extreme and adverse weather is causing so much harm, including to our crops and climate change is lowering yields. 

Hottest year ever in 2015! Even hotter yet in 2016!

Just look below and see what it did to food production during those years. Crops sure as hell liked that weather and all that CO2!

Release date: 05/07/2018

The rest of the plant world loved it just as much:

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

globe of Earth from North Pole perspective

This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.

"An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

I'm obviously not making this stuff up because can see the evidence yourself.

The sources above are NASA and the United Nations........not big oil or big coal. 

Let's get the truth and real science out there. That's what I thought Scott Pruitt was trying to do.

By Lacey - July 6, 2018, 10:27 p.m.
Like Reply

Who is the "big money"Trump is indebted to?

By mojo - July 7, 2018, 6:52 a.m.
Like Reply

No need to worry, Mike. This new guy coming in to replace Pruitt is a climate change denier & a polluter just like Pruitt was. This new guy was an oil & gas industry lobbyist & will let that industry & mining companies, & the chemical companies pollute as much as the want. He's as much of a swamp creature as Pruitt was, so not much will change at the EPA under this new guy.

By metmike - July 7, 2018, 7:26 p.m.
Like Reply

"No need to worry, Mike. This new guy coming in to replace Pruitt is a climate change denier"

Yeah, this atmospheric scientist for 36 years(who has studied climate change for 2 decades) is one of those deniers too. 

What we deny, is the skill of global climate models to project temperatures accurately using mathematical equations that represent a speculative theory which has turned out to be too warm vs the real world observations. 

What the other side denies are the observations of the real world. 

What to believe, who to believe. 

Should we believe a computer simulation of the atmosphere for the next 100 years? or should we believe the actual empirical data measuring the real atmosphere?

Note: The graph above shows warming. Most of us deniers KNOW that there is global warming.

The amount is important to the debate. Exaggerating the amount and effects, while denying the tremendous benefits of CO2 because they don't line up with the agenda is not's politics. 

By cliff-e - July 8, 2018, 8:14 a.m.
Like Reply