“We know humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That is fairly arrogant, for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

The_Piper wrote:Climate research scientist and nobel laureate Scott Pruitt said:

“We know humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That is fairly arrogant, for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

Tell us more, professor.
http://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-now/scientists-rebuff-epa-chiefs-claim-that-global-warming-may-be-good/465-c3ffc4cd-183a-47ae-8cbd-d1a8c16cdbdb

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As someone else pointed out a while ago, there seems to be a disturbing trend of Nobel laureates who start supporting various pseudoscientific notions.

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As someone else pointed out a while ago, there seems to be a disturbing trend of Nobel laureates who start supporting various pseudoscientific notions.

That was my title for Pruitt. He's actually employed as a professional troll, to head the EPA.

The_Piper wrote:Climate research scientist and nobel laureate Scott Pruitt said:

“We know humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That is fairly arrogant, for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

Tell us more, professor.
http://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-now/scientists-rebuff-epa-chiefs-claim-that-global-warming-may-be-good/465-c3ffc4cd-183a-47ae-8cbd-d1a8c16cdbdb

Caper wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As someone else pointed out a while ago, there seems to be a disturbing trend of Nobel laureates who start supporting various pseudoscientific notions.

That was my title for Pruitt. He's actually employed as a professional troll, to head the EPA.

Gee, I actually thought, for a minute there, that Pruitt had switched sides.

Alan C wrote:

The_Piper wrote:Climate research scientist and nobel laureate Scott Pruitt said:

“We know humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there are assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? That is fairly arrogant, for us to think we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

Tell us more, professor.
http://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/nation-now/scientists-rebuff-epa-chiefs-claim-that-global-warming-may-be-good/465-c3ffc4cd-183a-47ae-8cbd-d1a8c16cdbdb

My first thought upon reading that batshittery was 'is Scott Pratt thinking of warming trends as coming out of fucking ice ages?'

The_Piper wrote:

Caper wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As someone else pointed out a while ago, there seems to be a disturbing trend of Nobel laureates who start supporting various pseudoscientific notions.

That was my title for Pruitt. He's actually employed as a professional troll, to head the EPA.

Gee, I actually thought, for a minute there, that Pruitt had switched sides.

I considered whether Thomas was being sarcastic, and it didn't seem like he was.

The_Piper wrote:

Caper wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:As someone else pointed out a while ago, there seems to be a disturbing trend of Nobel laureates who start supporting various pseudoscientific notions.

That was my title for Pruitt. He's actually employed as a professional troll, to head the EPA.

Gee, I actually thought, for a minute there, that Pruitt had switched sides.

I considered whether Thomas was being sarcastic, and it didn't seem like he was.

Calilasseia wrote:Hmm, note the contrast here ...

Nunes cobbles together a piece of made up shit, alleging that the FBI was up to no good under Obama, and Trump releases it without question when it's sent to him.

Along comes a point by point rebuttal of the Nunes made up shit, based upon verifiable fact, and what does Trump do? Claim it can't be released because of "national security concerns". (read: it makes him look like a criminal fucktard).

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Caper wrote:

The_Piper wrote:
That was my title for Pruitt. He's actually employed as a professional troll, to head the EPA.

Gee, I actually thought, for a minute there, that Pruitt had switched sides.

I considered whether Thomas was being sarcastic, and it didn't seem like he was.

I wasn't, no.

More than 60 researchers and technologists are running for federal office in 2018 as part of a historic wave of candidates with science backgrounds launching campaigns.

At least 200 candidates with previous careers in science, technology, engineering and math announced bids for some of the nation’s roughly 7,000 state legislature seats as of Jan. 31, according to data that 314 Action, a political action committee, shared exclusively with HuffPost.

The group, which launched in 2014 to help scientists run for office, said it is talking with 500 more people and is pressing about half of them to run. An additional 200 such candidates are running for school boards.

“The sheer number is really astonishing,” 314 Action founder Shaughnessy Naughton told HuffPost. “We’ve never seen anything like this.”

This is the largest number of scientists to run for public office in modern history. If any of them win, it could dramatically multiply the number of scientists in Congress beyond Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), the lone Ph.D. scientist, a physicist.

The surge in congressional bids comes as scientists are experiencing a fierce political backlash. A year into his first term, President Donald Trump has yet to name a science adviser and has proposed dramatically slashing research budgets across federal agencies. He openly mocks the widely accepted science behind global warming and has nominated ardent climate deniers to key environmental positions. Under Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, the White House has reversed regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and put new rules in place to give control of the agency’s science advisory boards to researchers paid by industries.

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Caper wrote:

Gee, I actually thought, for a minute there, that Pruitt had switched sides.

I considered whether Thomas was being sarcastic, and it didn't seem like he was.

I wasn't, no.

My bad. I don't know what his scientific credentials are, if any. I was being sarcastic about it.

Seabass wrote:

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Piper wrote:
I considered whether Thomas was being sarcastic, and it didn't seem like he was.

I wasn't, no.

My bad. I don't know what his scientific credentials are, if any. I was being sarcastic about it.

He's a lawyer.