As part of Donald Trump's cabinet pick,
Myron Ebell, who is a director at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change skeptic, will lead the
Environmental Protection Agency's administration.
While Ebell has had no formal scientific education, and makes no claim to be a scientist, his view is that if public decisions are to be made according to scientific findings, than they should be discussed democratically by all people, not just scientists. Unfortunately, in the realms of science, public opinion doesn't matter much unless you're discussing the ethics of a scientific matter.
Appointing Ebell doesn't mean the environment is under threat, as suggested by the disenfranchised,
New York Times. The discussion on global warming has become so politicized that you're forced to wonder whether there is a hidden agenda behind it all. Why are some of the richest people on this planet lobbying to pursue it if it's only going to lead to more government restrictions, thereby reducing their riches?
Earlier this month, the United Nations banned a group of skeptical journalists from attending the UN Climate Change Conference being held in Morocco for holding views that are not 'particularly helpful'. If climate change is hardwired and an infallible truth, why are the elite afraid of the criticism?
While I don't agree entirely on Ebell's views, I do agree that the entire climate change debate needs to be broadened to examine the issue in more detail rather than continually denying the deniers.
