Bowsite.com

Pruitt: the Soros-Demons attack

Give me some examples Spike where Pruitt is relying on science for his decision making process. He denies climate change based on a few studies paid for by fossil fuel energy company but ignores the 99% of science consensus research that says climate change is real. Science argues about how fast it is happening but not whether it is real or not. Pruitt is trying to tear down the EPA from the inside out. He is an attorney with no scientific background. He has sued the EPA many times and assisted oil companies in Oklahoma get around environmental laws. He is only there to tear it down...not to make it better.

By the way, Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was about the effects of pesticides and herbicides on birds. Not on simply human carcinogens like your link says. Regardless, "Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that DDT is possibly carcinogenic to humans. EPA has determined that DDT, DDE, and DDD are probable human carcinogens." It is clear that DDT is not good for most organisms, especially bald eagles who were almost wiped out by DDT.

Pruitt is the swamp. Defend for one second his expenses, flying first class, raises for his people against the wishes of the WH, a sound proof room IN his office. Pruitt is the epitome of corruption and flaunting it to the proms below him. Yeah, great pick.

Boy you fav IMposter. Where do you come up with your bull$hit LIES??? You, THE LIAR, must bring PROOF, other wise your word is BS. 8^)

And DDT is a poor example to use in your argument. “A possible carcinogen,”. DDT has done more good than bad. Sure a few eagles eggs got cracked, but millions of humans did not contract Malaria,and other insect born diseases .

Hey Trax, I did a little more digging and you are correct. It is not 99%. I was wrong. It’s more in the range of 80-85% of scientists agree that climate change is real and in part due to humans. It’s still a strong consensus. The scientist you listed are in the minority. I think I will go with the consensus. Besides if I’m wrong and anthropogenic climate change is not real but we prepare for it then we are good. If your wrong and anthropogenic climate change is real but we don’t prepare then we have made the future for our children...grandchildren much more bleak. I say we prepare for the worst. Good discussion...I learned something. Thanks for the challenge Trax. I admit I was wrong and shot off at the mouth but I still think we should prepare while we debate.

Yes DDT will kill mosquitoes and prevent spread of disease. It also kills non-target insects like bees. Kill off the pollinators and see how long we last. It also bioaccumulates and kills a lot of aquatic life. Just because a chemical is good for one situation does mean we ignore the unintended effects on non-target species. We are better off without it and have moved on to less destructive treatments like antimalarial medication and bite prevention chemicals like deet.

Good discussion but I believe Pruitt is not good for the EPA. I want clean air, water, soil. I don’t buy that environmental regulation is choking off business. With all of the environmental regulation we still have a strong and growing economy. I don’t think it was environmental regulations that has cause catastrophic economic disastersin U.S. history. The last crisis was the lending and investing practices of banks. Maybe we should focus more on future prevention of those things instead of the destruction of the EPA by a friend of the oil industry. Pruitt is the fox run amuck in the hen house. It may give you comfort but not me.

Yeah.... DEET is so much less harmful..... as it melts the plastic off my steering wheel and the camo off my bow from what I applied to my skin....

I have no idea what you do for a living KS.....but I'm gonna go out on limb and guess you don't have a government agency breathing down your neck. The idea that the government can go to a low spot on a farm and claim government control and oversight because occasionally there is standing water there is ridiculous. But that is but one of our starting points to reel in an out of control agency.... every bit as out of control or more so than the IRS and a few other alphabet government bureaucracies.

Percentage wise Malaria has the history of killing a very large amount of all the people who have ever lived. DDT cancer totals are dismal by comparison. Plus now we have a resurgence of mosquitoes carrying the disease in areas not previously found and tick populations are exploding, Lyme's, babesosis along with it. So bad the blood banks will now start screening for it.

Not that I am supportive of indiscriminate DDT and other pesticide but they did have their use, still does in some places of the world.

"He denies climate change..."

There's the CLASSIC chicken little lie that when used totally discredits whatever the person who said that lie says after that. No one "denies" climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years and is changing as we speak. The climate as well as the planet would change weather we were here or not. All you have to do is look at land forms and rivers to see that. The scam of blaming man for all of it is just another way for politicians and other tyrants to take more individual freedom/money from people.

The climate change scam is the new communism, and like all communism is based on a lie, which you so kindly provided us with proof of in your statement.

Um, one could argue the % of the consensus, but the vast majority of climatologists and other folks working in that area believe. Here's Nasa suggesting climate change is a consensus: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ And here's a list of climate change myth's that have been debunked: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

There is some debate on effect. But not so much on whether it's occurring or whether our activity was / is a player.

There are some who suggest it's not real or that the data is fudged etc. Ill agree to that. But the overall flow of research has been pretty solidly laid out at this point.

Consensus is not science.

Just read an article in Zero Hedge that climate change, increase CO2, is going to have to be restudy do to increase in nitrogen level, recent discover that increase of nitrogen is being release through rock which off set the CO2 level. With 7 billion of humans on the planet there will be climate off set, the carrying capacity of humans on the earth is 4 billion, so who is going to be the first to step off to save the planet? There will be a correction of balance coming but do not know how or when but it will happen.

TD- You make reference to wetland or "waters of the U.S." regulations and how it is just unfair or overreaching. The scenario about standing water in a farmers field is completely false. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not regulate any puddle of water on private land. First, isolate wetlands that are not hydrologically connected to a navigable waterbody are not regulated. Also, farmers can farm wetlands as long as they always have. Also, its not just standing water. Wetlands have to contain wetland plants, soil, and hydrology over time to be a jurisdictional wetland. So the big myth that the USACE is coming onto farmers lands and fining them any puddle of water is a myth. My family is mostly farmers and the USACE has never come on their land and stopped them. The Clean Water Act protects our nations largest waterbodies. Waterbodies that are public resources and most are used for pubic drinking water. How are these important waterbodies supposed to be protected if you can't protect the water coming in from upstream. I agree that there is an argument to be made about were jurisdiction starts and begins and its debatable. But there is no way to protect public water resources without protecting the smaller streams and wetlands that are connect to those important larger waterbodies we all use for drinking water.

jss- I completely agree with your last statement. We are not outside of natures laws and there will be a correction at some point. Exponential human population growth will eventually cause a crash and like you said we don't know who will get it first or when it will happen. That being said I'm a conservationist and would like to conserve as many resources we can for future generations. We will always need water, food, and shelter to survive so I would like to conserve those resources for my children.

Oh, boy...TD you ask what I do. I'm going to catch hell for this and you all will say I'm completely bias. But I also don't want to dodge or hide but to be honest with you all. I'm a biologist and I do work with endangered species, wetlands permitting, etc. Now before you blast as a tree hugging wacko please understand I'm not a preservationist but a conservationist. I drive a 4x4 truck, burn fossil fuels, hunt and eat what I bring home, and use electricity, and I know there is a cost to using those things. But we can be smart about what we use, how we use it, and reuse/recycle/conserve what we can. Don't forget that hunters and fisherman were the first conservationist.

"The first rule to intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces..." - Aldo Leopold

OK I got my helmet on so blast away...

KSFlatlander,

You won't get any grief from me about your profession.

My older sister had a long and successful career as a water law attorney and project manager for the EPA over 2 administrations. She's beside herself with anger over Pruitt systematically dismantling the EPA, and I agree with her.

How any outdoorsman can be happy about rolling back pollution regulations and conservation measures is beyond me.

Matt

KS - it's interesting to me, that the vast majority of environmental scientists and or biologists I know or have met are very much pro hunting - for largely the reasons you noted above. They are conservationists.

Thanks for what you do!

It does NOT have to be a stream or creek. Many if not most of these farms acreage they are commandeering, the water may not even run annually. Only by the wildest imagination would anyone call them a stream or creek. When it rains hard water runs off from said puddle. Water runs everywhere. So NOW it's a steam.... They most certainly ARE going from farm to farm and condemning areas that have been farmed for generations, using the new regulations to do so. If they weren't what was the reason for expanding the regulations? Something to do?

They most certainly CHANGED the description and criteria to classify the property, fairly recently too. The property did not change, regulations did. EPA control and power expanded with that change. It expanded to cover and control ever smaller and smaller areas from what they originally controlled. PRIVATE land, not public.

EPA has a place. It should be a very small place. Their expansion and control, like nearly every government agency, IRS, etc. has grown too far, too fast. It is the nature of public sector to do so as there is little to no tangible result required to justify expansion such as in the private sector. All they need is a "cause". Or some dramatic event or looming disaster to talk up. That is their "business plan". You will NEVER hear a public sector agency say they need to downsize or need less budget, less control, less power. Never.

That has to come from outside the agency. Pruitt seems to be doing a very good job at seeing what is needed and what is not. His job is not to grow the agency. It is his job to make it more efficient and sort through what is necessary and what is needless layers of bureaucracy, paperwork and regulation.

WRT Climate Scientists...... see public sector agencies above. Not many,if any, are going to gut their own personal golden goose. (although they have no issues with slaughtering others....) That's why much of the contrary opinions are coming from those who used to be but are no longer in that "industry". If there are no public emotions of urgency or drama, impending doom, their budgets will get cut, THEY will get cut. That's why the dramatic BS about Himalayan glacier predictions, polar bears wiped out (currently at their highest population in over 50 years...) New York underwater (should have happened already according to many) on and on, false prediction on top of false prediction. Add in getting caught at falsifying data, hiding data that doesn't support the claim..... little wonder people are about fed up with it all. They cannot be trusted.

I get it, it's human nature..... house payments, kids in school, dental bills, etc. plus EVERYBODY wants to feel their job, what they do,is important. Necessary. I just wish more folks understood and factored in much of the underlying motives of human nature as well.

Well spoken.

KSFlatlander, much respect and, like you, it amazes me that the EPA ; Environmental Protection Agency, is doing everything it can to do the opposite of its actual name. Under trump, the EPA has undone clean water, clean air, toxin use rules, and the research studies on any of the effect in children and adults. Pruitts agenda is clear. Appease the polluters at any cost. In this case, the cost is our air and water.

YFImposter: BULL$HIT ALERT!!! 8^))

TD- you are correct that the USACE does not just regulate streams, creeks, and rivers. The do regulate the filling of jurisdictional wetlands that are hydrologically connected to streams, creeks, and rivers. And yes the wetland does not need to contain standing water year round. It only has to show the characteristics of a wetland ecological and we do this by looking at the plants, soil, and hydrology of the wetland. If it meets characteristics that were defined by biologist, soil scientists, and hydrologist in 1987. The definition of “hydrologically connected” has been defined by various administrations and courts. Recent court cases and the Trump administration have been shrinking the jurisdiction. I’m a bit torn with more narrowing what is jurisdictional as wetlands are good at removing pollutions from water. Kind of the first filter in a system. Regardless there have always been a permit process to modify streams and wetlands since the 1970s. If a wetland was less then 0.5 acres you only need to follow standing permit conditions. Less than 0.1 acres you don’t even have to notify the USACE. Some states also regulate wetlands but that a whole different story.

What Trump and Pruitt are doing is trying to limit any federal jurisdiction to only traditional navigable rivers (i.e. Mississippi River). You can’t control water pollution in these large water bodies without protecting upstream.

Can you provide an example where th EPA or USACE condemned wetlands on private property? Not regulate or require a permit but condemn.

Pruitt is not there for environmental protection he is only there to destroy the EPA. If we are wanting to have reduced regulations and streamline permit processes he could ask scientists and industry reps not an attorney from OK. There are ways to protect public resources and respect private property rights.

Good discussion.

Probably used a poor choice of words with "condemn". Agree, words matter.... I imagine there was a team of PR folks to come up with "clean water rule" (who could argue with that? are you against clean water?) in which Obama expanded what was regulated instead of "greater regulation of private property rule" But probably the word I should have used would be expand what they "regulate" or "restrict" (i.e. take control of) and require yet more reports and forms be filled out by people who DON'T have offices full of people in cubicles that do nothing else but create and file forms..... (you can hear the disbelief on the phone when I'm being hounded by some agency or insurance company to complete and send in a fistful of forms and I tell them I'm it.... and I'll do it when I find some time, I don't have a cubicle farm that revolves around paper. "Gasp!" They think only of what they do, no idea there is a world that actually doesn't have enough time in the day to get done what needs to be done, much less shuffle paper from one desk to another....)

When my father retired from the farm I think he said he was filing some 200+ pages of forms and reports to some agency or another, a good many of them explaining/confirming that he DIDN'T use this or that or DIDN'T grow this or that. It also required reporting on everything from crops planted and harvest rates to irrigation sources (most from private wells, some from ditchline systems) etc. and various testing, inspections, etc. The only thing he had really changed in over 50 years was the forms and time needed to deal with a half dozen or more agencies who suddenly felt what he did was their business...... people clueless as to WHY people even become farmers.....

WRT Pruitt..... the link above pretty much sums up my views of the EPA and what Pruitt is doing. Not ignoring science as the left is screaming from under their skirts..... he is saying we will no longer use closed confidential studies that are not open to peer review as a basis to create regulations. REAL transparency and real proven science for regulation instead of literally political science driven regulation. If that is "dismantling the EPA" then it deserves to be dismantled.

For one to be appalled by the rollback of some pollution regulations, one must believe that every regulation is worthwhile, grounded in science and/or cost-effective.

That would require weapons-grade naivete to believe.

Congress passes laws, the executive branch writes regulations to enforce the law, and the judicial branch interpret the regulations to see if they align with the intent of the law. That's how our constitution works and always has.

Following your logic Spike, then isn't Pruitt an bureaucrat that is changing the law by removing regulations? I thought you only wanted congress to do that?

The agency promulgates regulations. Using the same process, the agency can remove those regulations.

Congress does not draft regulations. Congress passes enabling legislation, setting the boundaries for what an agency can do. Agencies promulgate regulations under the rules of the Administrative Procedures Act.

It might be helpful, KS Flatlander, if you'd quit trying to show everybody how clever you are. It's not working.

What do you think promulgation is? It’s writing the regulations?

I’m not trying to be cute Spike. Your logic just seems contradicting.

Register here to reply to this topic