NYT: Marc Morano, a prominent denier of established climate change science, cheered the departure of Mr. Kuperberg and said he expects Mr. Legates to be named. “The Trump administration is ‘listening to the science’ by clearing out the anti-science promoters of extreme climate scenarios. These moves are long, long overdue,” he said.
Myron Ebell, a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a former member of Mr. Trump’s transition team. Mr. Ebell, whose organization has championed the appointment of Dr. [David] Legates and others who question the established science of climate change, said the intention is for him to lead the program while continuing to hold his position at NOAA. “It might be a short-term appointment,” Mr. Ebell said, given the election of President-elect Biden, who has said he will embrace aggressive efforts to tackle climate change. “If he only directs it for two months and a week, then he may not get very far, but let’s see what can get done in two months. Maybe the next administration will throw it all away, but maybe some changes will be adopted, who knows,” Mr. Ebell said.
Steve Milloy, a Heartland board member and part of Trump's Environmental Protection Agency transition team, says he welcomes the Legates appointment. "David Legates is a true climate scientist and will bring a great deal of much-needed science to NOAA," Milloy writes in an email to NPR.
Marc Morano comments: "This is a victory for science! Having Dr. Legates at NOAA will be a much-needed counter to the usual scientific crap coming from federal science reports. Science has not been served with the likes of Union of Concerned Scientists' activists Katherine Hayhoe or Don Wuebbles. Kudos to the Trump administration."
Donna Laframboise: "RCP8.5, I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophecy" - "Fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100."
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labelled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ (National Climate Assessment) takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
"RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix."
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the New York Times didn’t tell readers that.
Morano: "When will GOP officials take a real stand and push back on climate claims and the National Climate Assessment? Since EPA chief Pruitt left, Only Prez Trump himself does so. Every Trump cabinet head ducks the science. So disappointing. Why can't Pence actually turn the tables on CNN and answer and refute the predictable questions. I hate to see Tapper feel like he had 'tough' questions when in reality they were actually drivel."