Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department

Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:
In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.


So much for free will.

Sally Jewell needs to more specific why what she means by ‘climate change.’

American meteorologist Roger A. Pielke has noted the various definitions of ‘climate change:’

Poor leadership, not going to get honest advice from your subordinates if you tell them what to think.

Gen. Patton understood that:
“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

The current US government policy summed up in one sentence.

Why all the anti science people in the interior department?

Roughly ~ 1500 active volcanoes in any one part of the world at any time. The first five minutes of an eruption from any one of them produces more solid/gasseous/vapor emissions than all of human existence on this planet (by a large exponent).

If you think that you can stop or erase that impact you are on the crack. If you think that, somehow, humans have any greater impact or that the volcanoes would “remain in balance” with nature if only not for humans, you are crack incarnate.

I once saw grass growing on a section of closed (for 8 wks.) overpass in NJ. If you think we have more than a finger-nail-hold on any real estate on this sphere, or in the surrounding orbits that make up our solar system, you wash down your crack with liquid crack.

Hey D’s, don’t forget (we won’t) she’s your (communist, that’s right I said it, check your local Carbon-exchanges) baby.

This is just one more “problem” from the land of (D).

If you are from a blue state, you are part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, the problem is part of you.


Some of the people in the Dept of the Interior have no role whatever in energy policy. I fail to see how believing in whatever she means by “climate change” is necessarily a qualifying characteristic for ANY job in the interior Dept.

Here’s a list of the jobs in that Dept. You really need to believe in “climate change” to be, for instance, a proper accountant? A computer programmer? Bizarre!

But, probably the real meaning is "If anybody doesn’t accept Obama’s version of “climate change” (whatever it is, since he burns fuel like there’s no tomorrow) and policies like making utility bills “skyrocket”, that is a POLITICAL disqualification for working for the government of the U.S.

In other words, “no conservatives need apply.”

Elections have consequences.

Do you think that the Obama Admin is more intolerant than other recent Administrations?

Of opposing or even differing view points - yes.

From the USGS:

“Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).”

“In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).”

day one" - Valerie B. Jarrett Senior Advisor to President Barack Obamatake power****begin to rule

Have there been any other U.S. presidents who “take power” and “rule”?


Grrrreat! At last the gov scene is doing right and rectifying a really horrible situation. Halleluia. Such a refreshing change from when they were firing and silencing gov employees over this past decade for even daring to even mention climate change or even for presenting research data from their findings that indicated global warming was happening.

I hope the people so fired and denied pension just a few years before their retirement hear about this. Halleluia. The Lord it good and great!!!

However, I do hope the climate change deniers in the interior dept do find jobs elsewhere…maybe in the emerging green economy :slight_smile: I wouldn’t want them to starve, even tho they don’t seem to care a fig about AGW leading the massive starvation of people well into the future :frowning:

Calling those who may disagree with you Deniers, show that the Obama administration and the Interior Secretary are coming from a purely political angle, and have no interest in science.This is inflammatory language, implying with the choice of phrase that those who disagree are morally akin to Holocaust deniers. It is a defamation against character. It is ad hominem attack. It is religious persecution as well, as the ability to make a living and have a job is taken away from all who disagree.

Scientific thinking and impartial research requires intellectual freedom. The religious dogmatic model that was at the heart of the university system before the advent of science was explicitly about indoctrination and relaying what dogmatists knew as certain truth to the next generation. To explore what was unknown, the new science research institutions required that universities abandon their dogmatic models, and give research professors tenure in order they also be given absolute freedom to explore any hypothesis that might arise without interference.
Science requires that people test every hypthesis with fire, that people are in a position to disagree. If that is not allowed, what is happening is no longer science but religious dogma.

The Obama administration are dogmatist for the religion of the Left. Separation of church and state no longer exist, as the Leftist Orthodox religion takes over ever facet of institutional life.

Catholic leftist play a subversive role as a fifth column against the Catholic church itself as they fight for the hegemony of their true faith, Leftisn.

Very well put. :clapping:

I don’t understand why so many Catholics mix politics and science. Almost everyone I’ve asked (USGS geoscientists and experts in academia) believes that AGW is a real phenomenon. We can certainly debate what we can or should do about it, but I think there is little excuse to reject AGW based on the fact that many in the GOP dismiss it because it may negatively affect the coal industry.

Listen to the experts in thier fields of expertise: The Holy Father and the church on faith and morals, and climate scientists on AGW. Don’t rely on “right wing” talk radio to inform you on whether AGW is real or not.


So, in the interest of freedom of ideas, why not have flat-earthers dictating science-related policies? Or holocaust deniers teaching history courses? Why not 911 “truthers” in government departments? Why not let all the conspiracy theorists in for that matter so they waste time, money, and resources on useless or harmful endeavors.

Catch my drift? We all draw limits to our tolerance of ideas, and global warming denialism is a far-fetched position; why should state resources be wasted on policies entertaining ideas that no longer hold water? What next, will you argue that the NIH should hire people who don’t believe tobacco causes cancer or think autism is caused by vaccines to make public health policy?

Edit: additionally, your claim that the term denialism is defamation of character is simply untrue. What is the definition of ‘to deny?’ Some people willfully deny the reality of global warming, for whatever reason. Do you want them to invent a new word just because that one has already been used for other purposes?

I’m sure there’s no disrespect meant. And I think there may still be some climate change “skeptics” around – people who are unfamiliar with climate change science.

However, anyone in a position of responsibility who has scientific background and has been presented with the basic facts of the science of climate change, but still refuses to accept it, for those people I think “denial” might be an appropriate term. It’s not as if there is more than a 5% chance that scientists could be wrong in claiming global warming is happening and human activities are contributing to it. And considering that the government and policy-makers, unlike scientists, should be striving to avoid the false negative of failing to address a true problem, they should be even more accepting than the climate scientists are of the fact that human activity is contributing to global warming, and the impacts will be very harmful to life on earth. Certainly not less accepting.

People working for the government should be held to higher standards and not rely on “blog-science” for their scientific information.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit