Washington Post Aghast That Trump Picked Guy Who Doesn’t Follow “Settled Science”

With apoplectic editorials like this, Trump definitely picked the right guy to head the EPA

A man who rejects settled science on climate change should not lead the EPA

THE WEEK started with a hopeful sign for those concerned about climate change: Former vice president Al Gore met with Donald Trumpfor about 90 minutes on Monday, leading some to believe that the president-elect might be ready to accept facts and evidence. By the end of the week, however, Mr. Trump had selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Pruitt wrote this in National Review in May: “Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Obviously, saying that people should be able to debate and continue doing science and dissent are major Thoughtcrimes and Wrongthink.

Dissent, indeed, is not a crime, and acknowledging the uncertainties in climate forecasts is reasonable. But rejecting or playing down the near-unanimous warnings of experts, which are based on decades of substantial and continually accumulating evidence and suggest vast implications for future generations, should disqualify a nominee from leading an expert agency charged with making science-based decisions. Among scientists there is virtually no dissent from the conclusion that human activity — the burning of fossil fuels, which releases heat-trapping gases that stay in the atmosphere — is leading to planetary warming, and that the coming changes pose severe risks.

That link? It goes to NASA, which then cites the utterly discredited Cook et al “consensus” “study.” If this is what the Warmists at the Washington Post want to cite as ‘consensus” on science, well, then, looks like they are utterly disqualified from discussing the subject.

But rejecting settled science strikes us as being in a different category. The Senate should probe Mr. Pruitt’s position on climate change. If he explicitly or implicitly rejects the scientific consensus, that would be justification to vote no. If, on the other hand, he acknowledges the risks facing the globe, lawmakers should ask what Mr. Pruitt would be prepared to do as the nation’s chief environmental officer to combat them.

When you read things like that, you should wonder what they’re hiding, and why they want to shut down scientific inquiry. And just how much like a cult this is.