Pruitt doesn't "believe" carbon dioxide contributes to global warming

Scott Pruitt once again proves that he is not competent to head an agency that bases its actions on science.  Nor is he in any position to prove his outrageous claims, which can't be proven, because of the overwhelming evidence by scientists who know what they are doing.  Pruitt does not.

Pruitt stated that he does "not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."  So he admits there is global warming?  But where is the basis for his "belief"?  He choses to ignore what scientists have been tracking for over 100 years, with mountains of data to back their claims.

How do we impeach an EPA administrator?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/09/519425866/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-questions-basic-facts-about-climate-change?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-contributor-n731141

Great review for "Dick Dancers" from the Blogger Girls!

I don't know why I didn't post this when it came out but here it is!  Thanks, Blogger Girls!


Review: This is a short story about two guys making a living in NYC as go go dancers. If you’ve ever been to NY and experienced the bars and go go dancers, I think you’ll appreciate this story a bit more. It was fun to see this exaggerated version of how things are.

Joel and Sam’s lives consist of little more than going to the gym and dancing. At least, that’s all Joel seems to care about. He is with Sam, but is constantly thinking about more, being with more people, making more money, how much better he is than everyone else, etc. He is basically a big jerk with no redeemable qualities. I had absolutely no idea what Sam saw in him.

Sam is a sweet guy who, while he enjoys his job as a dancer, is looking for a bigger break. He spends his days looking for acting jobs or modeling gigs while still fitting in the gym and the dancing job. He pretty much only has eyes for Joel, though, again, I can’t fathom why. When Joel starts getting messages from a stalker, Sam is the only one who seems concerned.

Things escalate as the stalker steps up his game, but there is a pretty big twist that, even though it should have been obvious, I didn’t really see coming. This may have been the first time I was ever really happy about the outcome of such a twist.

Needless to say, this story was a really fast read, and storyline aside, the writing was well done. It was easy to read, made me chuckle at the almost ridiculous actions of Joel, and though this isn’t really a romance, I did feel like there was a HEA when all was said and done.

This is my first story by Mr. Morgan, and I’m looking forward to checking out his other work.

Overall Impression: I liked it

*I received a copy of this book from the publisher in return for a fair and honest review.*

https://thebloggergirls.com/2015/03/04/book-review-dick-dancers-by-alex-morgan/

Trump proposes 93% cut to Chesapeake Bay clean up program

In another reversal from his campaign rhetoric, The Donald has proposed a 93% budget cut to the Chesapeake Bay Program, a six-state effort with Washington, DC to clean up the largest estuary in the country.  That would mean a budget of $73M to $5M.  It supports a lucrative fishing industry as well as a favorite tourist destination.

As early as last Tuesday, Trump vowed “to promote clean air and clear water” but he also promised to create jobs.  Not only is he putting clean air and clean water in jeopardy, he is proposing cutting 3000 jobs at the EPA.  He has no plans to keep his promises.

Remember that Scott Pruitt is from Oklahoma, and has no knowledge of how to keep such a large body of water free from pollution.  This could set  clean-up efforts back years.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-trump-epa-budget-20170302-story.html
http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-bay-budget-slashed-20170302-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-address-to-congress/trump-vows-clean-air-and-clean-water-as-epa-cuts-loom/?utm_term=.6a9c64626d75

White House proposing deep cuts to NOAA, destroying jobs, not creating them

The Donald, who promised often during his campaign that he would create jobs, has proposed deep cuts (up to 18%) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and would eliminate funding for smaller programs, one which seeks to bolster coastal areas to withstand rising seas.

NOAA's satellite division would lose $513 million.  NOAA relies on data from its satellites to predict and track serious weather, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, to warn people of danger.

Another cut would eliminate a coastal research program that is conducted through thirty-three universities across the country.  Many of those universities are in states that went for The Donald in the election, such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina.

Cuts like these are certain to eliminate jobs as well.  Didn't The Donald promise to create jobs?  Am I mistaken?  Trumpsters?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?postshare=4181488643431975&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b3d58084eed3

Hey, Trump! No evidence WOTUS cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Trump's claim that the "Waters of the U.S." cost hundreds of thousands of jobs is baseless. No evidence exists that so many Americans lost their  jobs due to the EPA's rule.

The Washington Post reports that two of the biggest critics of the ruling, the U.S. Chamber of  Commerce and American Farm Bureau Foundation did not conduct any sort of review to see how many jobs had been lost since the rule was enacted.  By the way, the rule has been in stasis since 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The Post reached out to other opponents of the rule but did not receive any information on lost jobs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/02/trumps-claim-that-waters-of-the-united-states-rule-cost-hundreds-of-thousands-of-jobs/?utm_term=.378a1daab22f

House Republicans introduce a bill to terminate the EPA

In a move that shouldn't surprise anyone but should alarm everyone, House Republican Matt Gaetz (Florida) along with co-sponsors Thomas Massey (Kentucky), Steve Palazzo (Mississippi) and Barry Loudermilk (Georgia) has introduced a bill H.R. 861 to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.  The bill was introduced on February 3 and referred to the Subcommittee on the Environment February 10.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861

The Subcommittee on the Environment is lead by Lamar Smith (Texas) who is an outspoken climate-denier and brought a lawsuit against NOAA, claiming they were falsifying data to spread an alarmist agenda.  An independent study proved that NOAA did NOT fudge their data.  Global warming is real, folks!


The Subcommittee doesn't even have it listed on their front page, but it doesn't look like the page has been updated since September 2016.

https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/environment-and-economy-115th-congress

But Republicans don't get it.  Why terminate the EPA?  What justification is there for exposing millions of Americans to pollutants when we've worked so hard to get clean water, clean air, etc.  I sent a tweet to Jim Inhofe, asking him where his snowball this past month but haven't received a response.

So Trumpsters, how do you justify this one?

Our environment is doomed: The Donald begins his dismantling of the EPA

NPR reports that The Donald is planning to do away with the EPA's "Waters of the U.S." rule, which tries to define what small bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act.  There has been much controversy over the ruling when it was signed by President Obama, but Pruitt has sued the EPA over the ruling (2015).

Trump and Pruitt have both used strong language that seems to put the EPA into some sort of eco-terrorist light.

Trump stated:
"Regulations and permits started treating our wonderful small farmers and small businesses as if they were a major industrial polluter. They treated them horribly."
But the EPA's fact sheet on the Clean Water Act clearly shows farmers and ranchers being exempt:

From the Agriculture Fact Sheet:

The Act requires a permit if a protected water is going to be polluted or destroyed, however, agricultural activities like planting, harvesting, and moving livestock across a stream have long been excluded from permitting, and that won’t change under the rule. In other words, farmers and ranchers won’t need a permit for normal agricultural activities that happen in and around those waters. 

If it's clarification that is needed, don't eliminate the rule, revise it, Pruitt!  This isn't rocket science, which you wouldn't believe anyway.

It's old news that Pruitt is in thick with the oil and gas companies who contribute to his campaigns and lawsuits against the EPA to lighten or eliminate restrictions on releasing pollutants.

Trump and Pruitt have no inclination to preserve our environment.  They plan to dismantle the EPA which since 1970 has worked to give us clean air (remember Los Angeles and Manhattan in the 70's?), clean water and clean power.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517016071/trump-aims-to-eliminate-clean-water-rule

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/fact_sheet_agriculture_final.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/as-the-planet-warms-senators-shrug/513746/

https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-pruitt