With the White House’s decision to step away from the global community like the idiot who leaves the group and gets killed by the monster in the next scene, there are a lot of questions that a snowflake like Donald Trump doesn’t want to have to answer. Today, EPA chief Scott Pruitt was in the hot seat. The head of our Environmental Protection Agency has never been a fan of the environment and how it gets in the way of making him campaign contributions. The press asked Pruitt point blank if the Trump administration’s position on man-made climate change is to say it doesn’t exist.
I don’t know if you saw the confirmation process. My confirmation process was intense. I indicated that in fact, global warming is occurring. That human activity contributes in some manner but measuring with precision the degree of human contribution is challenging. But still begs the question. What do we do about it? Does it pose a threat as some say? People have called me a climate skeptic or denier. I don't know what it means—to deny. There are climate exaggerators.
The only thing the Tea Party has done for the world is prove that humans with shit for brains can walk and talk and seemingly breathe on their own. Pressed on his insane statement, a reporter asks him, how does he explain the increasing temperatures and the heights to which these temperatures have reached? Pruitt does the human race a disservice with this fake news bit that climate deniers everywhere have been touting—not unlike anti-vaxxers touted the debunked autism study.
We have actually been in a hiatus since the late 1990s, as you know.
No. No we don’t “know” anything of the sort. That’s bullshit.
For years, the idea of a hiatus, or a "pause" in global warming between 1998 and 2012, was used by climate change skeptics as evidence that the earth wasn't actually getting that much hotter. This was despite a significant body of science showing that the data underpinning the doubters' argument was flawed and that it was unlikely that any meaningful hiatus had occurred.
A new analysis in the journal Nature took a comprehensive look at what had been published on both sides of the issue. It found that a number of inconsistencies among studies proposing a hiatus—including variations in how the term "hiatus" was defined—led to cascading confusion. The study also pointed to some lessons for communicating climate science in the future.
That’s the second study debunking the bogus “hiatus” theory. I would say “shame on you” Scott Pruitt, but you have no shame, just a pile of anger and cynicism where a conscience is supposed to be.