EPA Head Zeldin on "Ruthless" podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Climate change is a theory. It's not a fact. People arent obligated to go all in on your theories to give up air conditioning and eat bugs so that cows stop farting.

It’s the only theory that hasn’t been proven wrong. The only people that benefit from climate science denialism are the fossil fuel industry and real estate industry. Everyone else loses. 20% of humanity across the globe may have to move away from coastal areas due to the changes occurring.

Of course, this denialism is basically a requirement to be a Republican now.

You'd be stunned how many theories have been proven wrong.

In 20 years, no one will talk about climate change anymore. There's a reason your leftist overlords have stopped talking about it. They used it to make everyone nod along while they handed out money to make windmills and solar farms that we pretend are better for the environment than other energy generation sources. But now that it's crystal clear that we won't have enough energy in the future, they suddenly dont talk about climate change or green energy. They know they radicalized democrats with that Al Gore documentary and can't tell you its over, but its over. "Genocide" is the new "climate change," get with the program comrade.

Let's break your mountain of drooling tripe down:

Climate change isn’t a fringe hypothesis, it’s a rigorously tested framework supported by over a century of data, satellite measurements, and peer-reviewed research. The term "theory" in science means a comprehensive explanation, not a wild shot-in-the-dark guess.

The idea that "no one talks about it anymore" is absolutely laughable. Climate change is front and center in global policy, economics, insurance risk modeling, military threat assessments, and disaster response planning. If anything, it’s louder than ever.

Wind and solar are outperforming expectations. They’re now the cheapest sources of new electricity in many regions, and they’re scaling faster than fossil fuels ever did. Pretending they’re a scam ignores the economic data and global investment trends.

Energy shortages? That’s a grid planning issue, not a failure of renewables. Fossil fuel volatility and climate-driven disasters are the real threats to energy security.

Al Gore didn’t radicalize anyone, he amplified what scientists had already been warning. The IPCC was founded in 1988, not by Hollywood, but by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization.

And your dippy "eat bugs" and "genocide is the new climate change" lines? They're not just stupid and tasteless, it’s a grotesque attempt to derail serious discourse with shock-jock nonsense.

1) I stand by my prediction that climate change will not be talked about in 20 years. It will slowly recede into the background, the way that concern about the ozone layer is no longer a discussion point. These days, most kids dont know what an ozone layer is. Climate change will go the same way. This is already happening: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/. Pew and others show the same trend. There's a reason politicals on the left aren't talking about.

2) the grid is a distribution system, not a generation system. It can only distribute energy that has been generated. So concerns about having enough energy cannot be addressed by grid upgrades. They can only be addressed by increasing energy capacity. I have no idea what you even mean about fossil fuel volatility and climate change disasters being the real threat to energy security. You can't power our country on unicorn farts. You have to have generation sources and we don't have enough because we've spent the past 20 years throwing all our cash at inefficient systems like solar.

3) I wouldn't have to talk about eating bugs if the left would stop pushing it. The left has serious concerns about cow-ass emissions that can be reduced if more people take on plant based diets. Fair enough, but then they went further and now argue we should eat bugs. No thanks, I am sticking to deer meat.

The ozone layer was fixed because governments worldwide banned the use of CFC’s. We don’t talk an out it because it was solved. That’s what we want to do with fossil fuel emissions. You are so uninformed. Please educate yourself so that you aren’t just arguing out of ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m floored that at this late date there are still people denying anthropogenic climate change. All you have to do is look at summer temperatures over the last 20 years. We never had 95 degree days in New England, now they happen every year. And what about disappearing sea ice and mountain glaciers. You have to be willfully blind to deny global warming.

BTW this isn’t a new issue. Gustav Arrhenius made the first calculations of how atmospheric temperature would change if CO2 levels doubled in 1903. His calculated rise is still within the ballpark of modern climate models, and perfectly in line with the observed temperature increases since then.

What are you talking about? I grew up in Rhode Island. We had two weeks of summer every August when it was friggin unbearable from 1975 to 2000. I remember because we didn't have A/C up there like most people. We had plenty of heatwaves. Where do you get this stuff?

We also had the Blizzard of 1978 where we got out of our two story home and stepped into the snow from the second floor of the house. Snow was plowed up to the top of parking lot lamp posts. History doesn't start when you remember it.

Please. Stop.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2025/06/24/what-is-the-hottest-day-on-record-for-ri-find-out-here/84331788007/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Separate but related note

What makes MAGA so selfish and resistant to facts? Like how can some humans care about others and some have zero empathy and zero facts and be so oddly short-sighted?

Serious question

Many reasons - Many conservatives resist climate action due to tribalism, industry influence, and ideological framing.

Tribal loyalty trumps facts: Climate science is politicized, with figures like Trump clinging to outdated myths (e.g. 1970s-era solar inefficiency, “windmills kill whales”) and cherry-picked tidbits like bird deaths, ignoring fossil fuels’ far greater impact.

Industry-funded doubt: Fossil fuel interests bankroll think tanks to sow skepticism, framing emergent clean technologies as threats - even though wind and solar create jobs, boost energy independence, and grow the economy.

Media distortion: Right-leaning media amplifies fear, uncertainty, and ridicule, painting climate advocates as elitist alarmists and reinforcing feedback loops of denial.

Distrust of regulation: Climate policy is viewed as a Trojan horse for government overreach. But nature doesn’t care about borders - atmospheric physics don’t bend to sovereignty or ideology.

Scientific illiteracy: Words like “theory” are misconstrued as guesswork, and models dismissed as speculation, despite decades of empirical validation.

Empathy gap and short-sightedness: Impacts are seen as distant, abstract or irrelevant, with little concern for future generations or vulnerable communities.

Reactionary backlash: For some, opposing climate action is just another way to “own the libs” - even if the fallout hits everyone.

Thank you for this.

What does religion have to do with climate change? I'm not Christian - does Christianity advocate for putting toxic chemicals into the air and water and food supply? Is this why they brainwash kids to want these things too? I can't imaging that any God would tell the followers to go out of their way to kill as many people/animals/plants as possible by poisoning them. Certainly the God of my religion doesn't want that (as far as I can tell), but I'm not familiar with the Christian concept of God. Please elaborate.

What does MAGA gain from climate change? Like why do they want climate change so badly? I understand the decision makers at the top gain money from the fossil fuel industry so there is that short term selfish gain, although they are sacrificing their children for more money than can even be spent. But what does the rest of MAGA gain from denying climate change? It seems to me all they get is "owning the libs" which is just bizarrely stupid bc MAGA population will die off first. So they would rather die and have their children die just to "own the libs" rather than be gainfully employed, healthy, and with clean water/air?

Distrust of regulation - Ok, I kinda see that perspective, but then why is regulation around food dye accepted or regulation around abortion ok, or govt regulation around what you can and cannot say accepted (regulating free speech, banning books,etc)? Throws the "I don't like regulation of climate policy" argument out the window.



So, it seems all we are left with is the fossil fuel industry paying decision maker politicians and paying off "religious" leaders to make policy in their favor and convince the masses to support their industry... oh and owning the libs.

[Anonymous]

Republicans largely disagree with the climate change premise.

They see it as a money grab. Surprisingly, democrats are unable to prove it isn't.

Same with universal health care and "free" college education. It's just there to socialize spending across the masses. UBI is the crown jewel of that.

[Anonymous]

How is climate change a money grab???

Maybe denying climate change creates more illness and injury and helps the health care professionals get more business? As a physician, I can say we don't need more business...more than we can handle as it is.

I see how universal health care and college tuition forgiveness are see as socialist and MAGA doesn't like to share their wealth. But climate policy doesn't share their wealth. In fact, it will cost MAGA less if their homes aren't falling apart from extreme weather and their bodies aren't falling apart from pollution/microplastics.

Anyway, wind/solar are quickly becoming less expensive than fossil fuels....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is climate change a money grab???

Maybe denying climate change creates more illness and injury and helps the health care professionals get more business? As a physician, I can say we don't need more business...more than we can handle as it is.

I see how universal health care and college tuition forgiveness are see as socialist and MAGA doesn't like to share their wealth. But climate policy doesn't share their wealth. In fact, it will cost MAGA less if their homes aren't falling apart from extreme weather and their bodies aren't falling apart from pollution/microplastics.

Anyway, wind/solar are quickly becoming less expensive than fossil fuels....

None of your examples are provable. Just gut observations to justify taking money from one group and giving it to another.

BTW, physician, your industry is created out of spending 17 cents of every dollar of our entire GDP on health care. That's literally starving just about every other industry in this country. It's not by desire. It's by govt mandate after mandate. It's artificially driven. Every other country in the world is 5% to 7% of their economy, not 17%.

So you "masterminds" who think x and y, there are a buttload of unintended consequences to your do-gooder views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps check out what the founder of GREENPEACE says about climate change.

OMFG !

I had no idea:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is climate change a money grab???

Maybe denying climate change creates more illness and injury and helps the health care professionals get more business? As a physician, I can say we don't need more business...more than we can handle as it is.

I see how universal health care and college tuition forgiveness are see as socialist and MAGA doesn't like to share their wealth. But climate policy doesn't share their wealth. In fact, it will cost MAGA less if their homes aren't falling apart from extreme weather and their bodies aren't falling apart from pollution/microplastics.

Anyway, wind/solar are quickly becoming less expensive than fossil fuels....

“Carbon credits” or carbon offsets, described and made part of the Paris Accord, are a system easily manipulated and open to massive fraud:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-cftc-should-raise-standards-and-mitigate-fraud-in-the-carbon-offsets-market/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Climate change is a theory. It's not a fact. People arent obligated to go all in on your theories to give up air conditioning and eat bugs so that cows stop farting.

It’s the only theory that hasn’t been proven wrong. The only people that benefit from climate science denialism are the fossil fuel industry and real estate industry. Everyone else loses. 20% of humanity across the globe may have to move away from coastal areas due to the changes occurring.

Of course, this denialism is basically a requirement to be a Republican now.

You'd be stunned how many theories have been proven wrong.

In 20 years, no one will talk about climate change anymore. There's a reason your leftist overlords have stopped talking about it. They used it to make everyone nod along while they handed out money to make windmills and solar farms that we pretend are better for the environment than other energy generation sources. But now that it's crystal clear that we won't have enough energy in the future, they suddenly dont talk about climate change or green energy. They know they radicalized democrats with that Al Gore documentary and can't tell you its over, but its over. "Genocide" is the new "climate change," get with the program comrade.

Let's break your mountain of drooling tripe down:

Climate change isn’t a fringe hypothesis, it’s a rigorously tested framework supported by over a century of data, satellite measurements, and peer-reviewed research. The term "theory" in science means a comprehensive explanation, not a wild shot-in-the-dark guess.

The idea that "no one talks about it anymore" is absolutely laughable. Climate change is front and center in global policy, economics, insurance risk modeling, military threat assessments, and disaster response planning. If anything, it’s louder than ever.

Wind and solar are outperforming expectations. They’re now the cheapest sources of new electricity in many regions, and they’re scaling faster than fossil fuels ever did. Pretending they’re a scam ignores the economic data and global investment trends.

Energy shortages? That’s a grid planning issue, not a failure of renewables. Fossil fuel volatility and climate-driven disasters are the real threats to energy security.

Al Gore didn’t radicalize anyone, he amplified what scientists had already been warning. The IPCC was founded in 1988, not by Hollywood, but by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization.

And your dippy "eat bugs" and "genocide is the new climate change" lines? They're not just stupid and tasteless, it’s a grotesque attempt to derail serious discourse with shock-jock nonsense.

1) I stand by my prediction that climate change will not be talked about in 20 years. It will slowly recede into the background, the way that concern about the ozone layer is no longer a discussion point. These days, most kids dont know what an ozone layer is. Climate change will go the same way. This is already happening: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/. Pew and others show the same trend. There's a reason politicals on the left aren't talking about.

2) the grid is a distribution system, not a generation system. It can only distribute energy that has been generated. So concerns about having enough energy cannot be addressed by grid upgrades. They can only be addressed by increasing energy capacity. I have no idea what you even mean about fossil fuel volatility and climate change disasters being the real threat to energy security. You can't power our country on unicorn farts. You have to have generation sources and we don't have enough because we've spent the past 20 years throwing all our cash at inefficient systems like solar.

3) I wouldn't have to talk about eating bugs if the left would stop pushing it. The left has serious concerns about cow-ass emissions that can be reduced if more people take on plant based diets. Fair enough, but then they went further and now argue we should eat bugs. No thanks, I am sticking to deer meat.

I love it when you fools use the ozone layer as a talking point when action is what reversed the issue. But ok. You should take a screen shot of your comment and save it on your phone. To remind you that “we don’t be talking about climate change” in the future. This timeline is worse than Idiocracy. At least in that movie, the dumb people recognized they were dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m floored that at this late date there are still people denying anthropogenic climate change. All you have to do is look at summer temperatures over the last 20 years. We never had 95 degree days in New England, now they happen every year. And what about disappearing sea ice and mountain glaciers. You have to be willfully blind to deny global warming.

BTW this isn’t a new issue. Gustav Arrhenius made the first calculations of how atmospheric temperature would change if CO2 levels doubled in 1903. His calculated rise is still within the ballpark of modern climate models, and perfectly in line with the observed temperature increases since then.

What are you talking about? I grew up in Rhode Island. We had two weeks of summer every August when it was friggin unbearable from 1975 to 2000. I remember because we didn't have A/C up there like most people. We had plenty of heatwaves. Where do you get this stuff?

We also had the Blizzard of 1978 where we got out of our two story home and stepped into the snow from the second floor of the house. Snow was plowed up to the top of parking lot lamp posts. History doesn't start when you remember it.

Please. Stop.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2025/06/24/what-is-the-hottest-day-on-record-for-ri-find-out-here/84331788007/

Maybe you should stop (and think). In the table of the 10 peak temperatures that you cite (which has data going back at least 80 years according to the description), 9 of them occurred since 1990. 6 of them occurred in the last 25 years. That's what we call a "trend". Who cares if 1975 was unusually hot - the point is that your odds of having a very hot peak summer temperature are much higher today than they were 50 or 100 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans largely disagree with the climate change premise.

They see it as a money grab. Surprisingly, democrats are unable to prove it isn't.

Same with universal health care and "free" college education. It's just there to socialize spending across the masses. UBI is the crown jewel of that.

Republicans also doubt evolution, so I wouldn't take their opinions as worth much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is climate change a money grab???

Maybe denying climate change creates more illness and injury and helps the health care professionals get more business? As a physician, I can say we don't need more business...more than we can handle as it is.

I see how universal health care and college tuition forgiveness are see as socialist and MAGA doesn't like to share their wealth. But climate policy doesn't share their wealth. In fact, it will cost MAGA less if their homes aren't falling apart from extreme weather and their bodies aren't falling apart from pollution/microplastics.

Anyway, wind/solar are quickly becoming less expensive than fossil fuels....

“Carbon credits” or carbon offsets, described and made part of the Paris Accord, are a system easily manipulated and open to massive fraud:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-cftc-should-raise-standards-and-mitigate-fraud-in-the-carbon-offsets-market/

You probably aren't aware that carbon credits and offsets were originally proposed by *Conservative* policy makers as a "market friendly" solution to the climate crisis. But I agree that they are not very effective. That's why we should have a straight up carbon tax on the fossil fuel industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The heatwaves that used to be a rare, fluke anomaly in the 1970s is now becoming the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans largely disagree with the climate change premise.

They see it as a money grab. Surprisingly, democrats are unable to prove it isn't.

Same with universal health care and "free" college education. It's just there to socialize spending across the masses. UBI is the crown jewel of that.

They see it as a money grab yet there aren't multimillionaire climate scientists, there aren't massive multinational solar corporations spending billions to fund phony think tanks to spread false propaganda, or all that. That's the fossil fuel industry.

Conservatives suffer from severe cognitive dissonance.