PA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox

Fox News Sunday / Screenshot

I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.

Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.

Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.

And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.

Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.

Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.

Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record.

Pruitt had no convincing comeback.

Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?”

Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond.

There should have been nothing complicated or unexpected about these questions. They are the kind of thing any half-way decent interviewer might have asked, be he a hostile one or a semi-friendly Fox News one playing devil’s advocate.

And if Scott Pruitt had had even the most cursory briefing and media training in his new role, he should have been prepared for them.

Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump’s environmental policy: that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again.

How could Scott Pruitt not do this?

Any one of us on the skeptical side of the argument could have pointed him to dozens of leading scientists — and hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles — that could easily have enabled Pruitt to say what needed to be said.

He could have noted the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the heavily politicized IPCC; the dishonest manipulation by organizations like NOAA — indeed especially NOAA — of the raw temperature data; the utter meaninglessness of the “hottest year evah” claims so often made in the liberal media.

And he could easily have batted off the “What if you’re wrong?” question by making perhaps the most important point of all that needs to be made about the “war” on “carbon”: that what it all comes down to is cost benefit analysis. To whit: the trillions of dollars being spent every year on the possibility that there might be a problem, a) could be spent much more usefully elsewhere and b) are doing more harm than good.

Pruitt was incapable of doing this though because, trained lawyer though he is, he is simply not on top of his brief.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

179 Million Reasons Why Trump Can Never Destroy The EPA

Valerie/Macon/AFP/Getty/AP

Today President Donald Trump visits the Environmental Protection Agency – the snake which he has scotched but which he is sadly a long way from killing.

On SiriusXM Breitbart News Daily this morning Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow asked me why this simple job is proving so difficult for Trump’s appointed EPA chief. Listen to our exchange below:

Well here are 179 million reasons why, courtesy of a Daily Caller investigation.

Six nonprofit groups that criticized President Donald Trump’s proposed budget cuts failed to mention the nearly $179 million in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants they’ve received since 2009, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group (TheDCNF) analysis of federal spending data.

The agency has funded thousands of such groups since former President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, but TheDCNF focused only on six of the largest nonprofit recipients in its analysis of grant data compiled by the watchdog Open The Books.

But if you had to limit yourself to just one reason, I’d say simply: Jimmy Kimmel.

Which isn’t to say that the amiable liberal chat show host represents the Belly of the Beast of Green Evil. Merely that Kimmel is the perfect example of the kind of person who makes conservatives like Scott Pruitt feel uncomfortable about sounding too hardcore on environmental issues.

Earlier this year, for example, Kimmel sent out this ugly message to his eight million Twitter followers.

Who wants to be dissed by easy-going, likeable, not-aggressively-political Jimmy Kimmel?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scott Pruitt Is Failing to Drain the Swamp at the EPA

President Trump’s attempts to drain the swamp are being undermined by one of his key administrators.

Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is more interested in building his political career than he is taking on the Green Blob, insiders report.

Pruitt is also said to be behind attempts to remove at least one of the key phrases from the president’s long-awaited Executive Order on the environment.

It concerns a proposal to repeal the EPA’s Endangerment Finding on CO2 (the disastrous, unscientific, job-killing ruling introduced during the Obama Administration, which rebranded the harmless trace gas Carbon Dioxide as a dangerous substance).

If Pruitt is successful and this clause is removed from the Executive Order it will represent a major setback for President Trump’s war with the Climate Industrial Complex. It may also put into jeopardy the promises Trump made on the campaign trail to scrap “any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest.”

“This is the president’s one shot at winning this battle,” an ally in the EPA camp warns. “It’s like the French heavy cavalry at Agincourt: lose momentum and he’s going to get stuck in the mud being shot to pieces by the English longbows.”

To understand the background to this story, you need to know who Scott Pruitt is and how he landed such a key job. The dismantling of the EPA, after all, is a core part of Trump’s swamp-draining program — so clearly it mattered greatly that the Administrator’s position should go to a capable, determined figure.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

More on Me, Milo, NeverTrumpers and the C Bomb…

So yeah, I used the C bomb and they recoiled as if I’d used the actual C word instead of just the relatively harmless insult – cuck – used by red-meat conservatives to dismiss those of a more vegetarian variety.

It’s not a term I particularly adore myself. Too macho. Too Kurt Schlichter and Mike Cernovich. I’m a big fan of both those guys’ writing but I’m not them and they’re not me. I’m an Oxbridge educated Englishman who used to have long girlie hair and has taken lots of drugs and actually values shit like nuance and literature and lightness of touch. But there are some occasions, nonetheless, when only the word “cuck” – short for cuckold – will do. And one of them, I decided, was when venting on Ricochet about the defenestration of Milo.

I have no axe to grind against Ricochet – they’re my friends. At least I thought they were till I saw the response from some of their readers to that podcast. And those responses seem to me emblematic of everything that is wrong with the conservative movement in its broadest sense: the prissy, prim, navel-gazing, self-regarding, uptight strain who see themselves as Keepers of the Conservative Flame and who dismiss anyone who falls short of their invented standards as “not a real conservative” and therefore unworthy of their support.

God, how this applies to NeverTrumpers. (It was NeverTrumpers, of course, who went after Milo). I really don’t care if Donald Trump was a Democrat once. I don’t give a toss – nor did all those women who voted for him – about the “grab them by the pussy” tapes. I don’t care about his brashness and his vulgarity and his inability to have lovely skin tone like Obama and to make grave-sounding speeches about absolutely nothing like Obama was so good at doing.

All I care about is: is he good at getting conservative shit done? And he is. Really good at it. I like the military – most conservatives do. I think poor kids, whether black or white, shouldn’t have to endure a substandard education which only prolongs and increases the vast societal divide between the haves and the have-nots. I think global warming is a massive, mostly left-wing conspiracy against free markets, liberty and science. I believe in the Laffer Curve and think lower taxes are better than higher taxes.

Donald Trump is doing good stuff in all these areas and more. You can see why the liberal-left might not want to give him credit for this: they’re perennially wrong about everything. But the people I really don’t understand are the people in the conservative movement who are not cheering him to the rafters.

“Don’t make the best the enemy of the good” they say.

Damn right. Except in Trump’s case the phrase should be: “Don’t make the best the enemy of the pretty damned amazing.”

Trump’s doing great. He’s funny, he’s a King Troll on Twitter, he’s sticking it to the liberal media in a way that they’ve deserved for years and he’s doing lots and lots of really good things which anyone of an even half-way conservative disposition should be celebrating.

I’m sorry NeverTrumpers – because some of you are my friends: or were – but your ingratitude nauseates me in the same way your willingness to chuck Milo over the back of the sledge to feed the wolves disgusts me.

That’s why I’m wheeling out the C word once more because, I’m sorry but you deserve it.

Cucks. You’re a bunch of cucks. There it is.

NASA to Stop Shilling for Big Green, Restart Exploring Space…

NASA said its International Space Station partners, which include Canada, Japan, and the European Space Agency, are aware of a Moscow proposal to cut the number of Russian cosmonauts at the ISS from three to two
AFP

“And would sir like a regular or large fries, with that? And how about a McFlurry?”

I do hope that Gavin “Toast” Schmidt, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), followed the advice I gave him a few months back. Because it now looks very much as if he and many of his colleagues are about to face exciting new job opportunities, hopefully in areas best suited to their talents, such as the challenging world of fast-food retail.

Yes, as we predicted, NASA is going to be stripped of the two main roles it enjoyed under the Obama administration – Muslim outreach and green propaganda – and return to its original day (and night) job as an agency dedicated to space exploration.

The U.S. Senate passed legislation recently cutting funding for NASA’s global warming research.

The House is expected to pass the bill, and President Trump will likely sign it. Supporters say it “re-balances” NASA’s budget back toward space exploration and away from global warming and earth science research. Republicans plan to end the more than $2 billion NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate.

“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, told E&E News. “I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that.”

Before we shed too many tears for the plight of Gavin Schmidt and the rest of his global warming research team, though, let’s just pause to reflect on how much damage they have done to the cause of honest science over the years and what eye-wateringly vast quantities of our money they have wasted.

A good place to start is this excellent piece by Steve Goddard, entitled The Pause Is Real: NASA Temperatures Aren’t.

Here is the damning chart that says it all:

Screen-Shot-2017-02-18-at-6.34.24-AM

How did a supposedly respectable government agency get away with such blatant fraud?

Well, one answer is that it was encouraged to do so by the US government which paid its Earth Science research division $2 billion a year, while giving only $781.5 million and $826.7 million to its astrophysics and space technology divisions. Obama wanted “global warming” to be real and dangerous: and – lo! – thanks to the magic of his crack prestidigitators at NASA, NOAA and the rest, it was.

But the longer answer is that this is what happens when green ideologues are allowed to infiltrate and hijack government institutions. As we’ve reported before, NASA has been caught out fiddling temperature data on “an unbelievable scale”. So too has NOAA. That’s because their global warming departments are mostly run by true believers – scientists who want to show the world that global warming is a major threat in urgent need of more grant funding, regardless of what the actual temperature data shows. Hence the many, many adjustments.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

NOAA Scandal Gives Trump the Perfect Excuse to Drain the Climate Swamp

DOMINIQUE FAGET/AFP/Getty

So NOAA deliberately fiddled the climate data to hide the “pause” in global warming in time for the UN’s COP21 Paris talks.

Really, this whistleblowing revelation couldn’t have come at a better time for Donald Trump.

In the field of energy and climate, President Trump has said that there is a massive swamp that needs draining.

But his efforts are being resisted at every turn by all those lying scientists, bent politicians, rent-seeking businessmen, and Soros-funded activist groups who  insist: “What swamp? What crocodiles? What leeches? Nothing to see here!”

What the whistleblowing NOAA insider John Bates has just done is prove beyond reasonable doubt what some of us have long claimed: that from NASA GISS and NOAA across the pond to the UEA and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, the world’s leading temperature data sets have been hijacked by climate activists and abused to advance a political agenda.

Here at Breitbart we smelt a rat from the moment NOAA released its dodgy, “Pause-busting” study two years ago.

As we reported, with perhaps a hint of snark, in “‘Hide the Hiatus!’. How the Climate Alarmists Eliminated The Inconvenient Pause In Global Warming” the paper seemed to have been produced by two alarmist shills at NOAA – Tom Karl and Thomas Peterson – with the express purpose of confounding sceptics in the run up to Paris.

The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening. And how did Karl et al. notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialised scientific technique called “getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.” Essentially, this technique involves making adjustments to the raw temperature data (sound familiar?) and discovering – lo! – that the sceptics were wrong and the alarmists were right all along. Karl’s paper makes much of the fact that the methods used for gathering sea temperature data have changed over the years: in the old days it used to involve buckets; more recently, engine intake thermometers. Hence his excuse for these magical “adjustments”. Apparently (amazingly, conveniently), the measurements used since 1998 have been “running cold” and therefore needed correcting in a (handy) upward direction in order to show what has really been happening to global warming. Once you realise this – global warming turns out to be as real and present and dangerous as ever it was.

In October 2015, we followed up with a story headlined: “NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover Up Since Climategate.”

This reported on how NOAA had refused to give up its documents in response to a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas) who also smelt a rat – and just needed some raw data to prove it.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Clint Eastwood Just Reminded Us Why He Is The World’s Coolest Star

Now rack your brains and try to think of anyone of Clint’s celebrity eminence who’d admit to such views on the record. Charlton Heston, possibly, except he’s no longer with us. Michael Caine is the only living movie star I can think of – but he’s English so his views on the US presidential election wouldn’t carry quite so much weight.

How depressing is it that the entire universe of celebrity is so politically one-sided?

None more depressing, I’d say. If you believe, as Andrew Breitbart did, that “politics is downstream from culture” then it clearly matters very much what our movie and TV stars, pop idols, comics and so on think.

Why do you think Hillary had so many of them surrounding her at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia recently?

Because, duh, there’s a significant chunk of the voting populace which doesn’t give a damn whether or not their potential next president is a lying, cheating, email-hiding, Benghazi-tainted, crony-capitalist, continuation-Obama witch. All that matters to them is knowing they’re on the same team as Katy Perry, Sigourney Weaver, Elizabeth Banks, Meryl Streep and the incredible  chick who played Hit Girl in Kick-Ass.

Read the rest at Breitbart.