Myron Ebell

>has a Bachelors in philosophy and a Masters in political theory
>runs a think tank that takes millions from ExxonMobil

Why is he qualified to head the EPA? Why is an anti-establishment, anti-corruption president putting a spokesman for oil companies in charge of regulating oil companies? Why should I not be horrified by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU
scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because climate change isn't real you faggot. It's cargo cult science funded by governments for progressive ends.

Because retards like this guy don't care that their candidate is ignoring his campaign promises and acting like another politician.

>peer reviewed papers are cargo cult science

The other people he's appointing are also rather disappointing, but Myron Ebell is someone whose objective is to make money for oil and gas companies.

If anyone on this board has ever thought that Trump was going to use the presidency for anything other than lining his own pockets they're fucking delusional.

>peer reviewed papers

You don't even know what the peer review process involves do you? Papers on intersectional white fragility are also "peer reviewed". Climate science is unfalsifiable and entirely an arm of the Progressive Church. I'm so glad it's getting defunded forever.

If you believe that peer reviewed papers are cargo cult science then you believe that all science is cargo cult science. Just admit that you're a scientific illiterate.

Does not follow.

>if you think one thing is x, then you think all things are x

You believe that peer reviewed climate studies are cargo cult science. What is required for something not to be cargo cult science?

If you believe that people believe that then you're a nazi. Just admit that you're a nazi.

For it to be falsifiable - which it isn't.

People who come out against AGW or even apply for funding to research and test its hypotheses have their careers destroyed. They get labelled "deniers". They're not allowed to look into it or critically examine it, they have to just give them the research the IPCC wants them to produce so they can keep their careers going. It's a Lysenkoist fraud entirely funded through the US government and I hope Trump chokes the life out of it forever.

Yeah trump probably believed what he was saying during the campaign but now that reality is setting in he doesnt have much choice but to fall in line, and it looks like the line he's going with are very conservative establishment Republicans

Something being "peer reviewed" doesn't automaticaly make it legit. There are homeopathy journals and people with degrees that will peer review your study if you want to publish in those journals.

>>anti-establishment, anti-corruption president

i think you're confused

It is falsifiable, it's just not false.

Not all 'theories' are created equal. You can't get funding for a study on intelligent design or why the sky is green either. It's not a conspiracy to silence these people, it's that funding is too short to spend on people barking up the wrong tree.

So what are you going to say does constitute legitimacy? Falsifiability? AGW could be falsified, if the data didn't support it. But the data does support it.

>Make America Rich Again
Looks like it's already starting.

>It is falsifiable, it's just not false.

What experiment would you devise to falsify its claims?

>You can't get funding for a study on intelligent design or why the sky is green either.

Imagine if you could and that the cult which pushes non-scientific nonsense has billions behind it and also managed to take over governments and convince the world their bullshit is true? What a hellish dystopia that would be right? That is the world we live under thanks to the AGW fraud.

>But the data does support it.

No it doesn't actually: youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

The climate record is heavily doctored and every few years they weight the past to make it look cooler, to keep in line with what they want to see.

Guys I thought the CTR were supposed to leave us alone once the Emperor is elected

fuck off CTR faggots this is OUR BOARD

I dont get your scientific fumding bullshit. Are you a commie faggot? Who gives a shit about government fuding. Scientists can just go on the free market to get their funding and not act like faggot crybabies.

I could look at greenhouse gas levels, which are up, or land ice levels, which are down, or ground temperature measurements, which are up, or stratospheric temperature measurements, which are down, or I could go back to basics and test the greenhouse effect, which surprise surprise, still works.

>Steven Goddard
They weight the past because of changes in the way temperature was measured, something he helpfully neglects to mention.

greenhouse effect is real, therefore Venusian superheated CO2 inferno by next tuesday due to spurious feedback loops and hockey sticks even though the Earth has already had magnitudes more CO2 in its atmosphere millions of years ago

>They weight the past because of

Because they're fucking frauds.

>misrepresentations and projection
Sorry, no Exxon paycheck for you!

>lel studies funded by oil companies are clearly manufactured nonsense, but studies funded by ideologically devoted governments with magnitudes more money to burn are somehow truthful and trustworthy and this effect doesn't apply to them

>Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
>A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

>scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
>theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

>hur dur muh libruhls

It is after your sleep time, ahmed

wait, so they're funding climate change denial *and* pro-climate change research too? wow those guys just can't get their story straight, can they

>misinterpreting the articles to fit his agenda again
just kys Ahmed
It clearly says they tried to hide these info from public and pushed falsified data to the public.

you mean like what the AGW credulists have been doing for the past few decades with climategate and so on

>AGW credulists

It's a rumor from MSM.

yes thank god

some dude with a rational mind should head the EPA