Trump names climate skeptic to transition team

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Trump today named a climate skeptic from the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute to lead his EPA transition team .

Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy at the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, is heading Trump’s EPA transition preparation, E&E Daily reported Monday. Ebell is an outspoken, longtime skeptic of the scientific consensus that human activity is dramatically changing the climate. He often refers to warnings about global warming as climate “alarmism” and is a vocal critic of President Obama’s climate change regulations. Ebell has argued that the Clean Power Plan is illegal and that the Paris climate change agreement is unconstitutional.

As those who have been reading Behind the Black know, I have been looking closely at the people Trump is looking at to be part of his administration, should he win the election. His choices will tell us two things: One, the political positions of his appointees will provide an indication of Trump’s own political preferences at this time. Two, his choices will tell us the nature of people that will be advising Trump in the future.

So far, his choices have leaned right, with a few exceptions. This choice for leading the transition at EPA is significantly to the right, and indicates that a Trump administration would work aggressively to dismantle the global warming cartel that presently runs things in the climate field, using government money as their hammer.

Most of you and the media will be glued to your televisions tonight, watching the silly debate show. I am more interested in what Trump might actually do. For example, I was somewhat impressed by the immigration speech Trump gave August 31. Unlike most political speeches by him and every other modern politician, it was not a litany of emotional attack soundbites and cute jokes. Trump outlined in great detail the overall policy plans to deal with the federal government total failure to do its job controlling the border. I did not agree with all of his proposals, but I found the overall thoughtfulness of the speech encouraging.


  • wayne

    Ref: the Debate Show; wouldn’t say I was “glued” but I did want to see both of them on-stage and off-prompter.
    >About 60 minutes into this & I’m going to bail.

    It’s not pretty, at all.

    Hillary is doing the Performance of her Life tonight.
    Trump is falling for every trap.

    The Target-Audience for these “debates,” are the “undecided,” and not the partisans either way, and now…. I’m really worried. (Obama was elected twice.)

  • Phill O

    It is a good thing the election is not in Canada. My friends up here will not watch FOX news and all our news is in the bag for Hillary. It is incredible how uninformed Canadians are.. Guess that is why Alberta has an NDP and Canada has a liberal government.

    Hey Bob, the way you are looking at the Trump thing shows an open mind. We need more of that in the world.

  • ken anthony

    Bob, you do come across as the adult in the room (as always and you said it well.) I was very disappointed in Trumps performance. I thought know he missed some knock-out punches when Hillary pitched him some slowballs.

    I judge Hillary the winner on style and Trump the winner on substance. But to give him the win on substance I had to go to the transcript because Trump’s delivery did not have the impact it should have had.

    Trump could have decimated her style if he’d just stuck with the point, even praising her, that she’s a good talker but the results were bad for this country. He did make the point that she’s had years to fix things and hasn’t, but it would have been more effective if he responded to everything she said with a Reaganist, “There ya go again. You’re a great political speaker, your points are well rehearsed, but we’ve seen the results of you in power for decades.”

    The good news is the Times poll of over a million mostly democrats gave Trump the win. So his message did make it through his poor delivery.

  • Max

    I tuned in expecting to be entertained/and informed. I was very disappointed. The entire debate seem so petty and pointless, mostly personal attacks and repetition of vague promises. I don’t know why but they reminded me of the cartoon characters Bevis & butt head.
    Is this the best we have? Do either one of these people know anything about the constitution? For example, trump said ” taking guns from the people on the no-fly list seems like a good idea…” Agreeing with HRC.
    Flying on a public airline is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning guns and defending yourself is! Taking away your rights without due process because your name shows up on a list is not American. IMO this question alone disqualifies both of them for president of the United States. They cannot take an oath of office if it is their intention to violate that oath with every breath.

    I learned last night that the CDC has a regulation that becomes federal law on October 15. It basically forces everyone to have immunization shots. If they determine that you are at risk and have not had or cannot prove that you have had shots, they can detain you and force them upon you including a digital tag that lets them monitor your movements and who you associate with incase there is an outbreak. It has Orwellian language like “disease carrier” or “potential disease carrier”. Everyone has the potential… No one will have immunity against government overreach. Stay tuned…

  • Edward

    Max asked: “Is this the best we have?

    No, but the Republican Party chose the worst of its nominees as its candidate.

    Max asked: “Do either one of these people know anything about the constitution?

    They may, but neither one likes the Constitution, as it gets in their way. In addition to the things you noted, Max, Trump wants to be able to stifle free speech, which allows people to get away with saying things about him that are negative, and he likes being able to use government to force property from its rightful owners so that he can use it. This is the difference between the right someone as president and a Trump or Clinton as president.

    You are right about the no-fly list as it is filled with people whose names sound like the names of suspected terrorists, and it is filled with people who pissed off the wrong person. Even Senator Ted Kennedy was on the list due to the similar-name problem. Even though he was a crony Senator, it still took a while to get off the list, so what chance to the rest of us unconnected peons have?

    This is the difference between living in a nation of laws, where we are all treated equally, and a nation of men, where the cronies of bureaucrats are treated well and the enemies of bureaucrats are mistreated. In the former, you can succeed on your own, but in the latter, you need a friend in government in order to succeed — giving truth to Obama’s claim that “you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen.” Both Trump and Clinton prefer the latter, as it gives them a leg up over their competition, and it allows them to harm those who bother them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *