Scientists understood the climate 150 years ago better than the EPA head today

[Adrahil]

5. It's a prime example of outcome-based thinking.

They have an answer already and in their view, anything with justifies it must be promoted. At some level, they may even believe it. But it is at odds with the scientific method. A hypothesis cannot simply be plausible, it must actually eplain the evidence. But people like Pruitt are just looking for anything that they can use to squeeze out more profit. The fossil fuel industry of the early 21st century are the tobacco companies of the late 20th century.