ThinkProgress filed this report from Marshalltown, IA.

Today at a campaign stop with the group American Principles Project, Herman Cain took a question about how to increase domestic oil production. Without missing a beat, Cain said that, as president, he would create a special commission to remove environmental and energy regulations at the EPA. Cain explained that the commission would be comprised of businessmen from the coal, oil, shale oil, and natural gas industries because they are the “people closest to the problem.”

Cain then said he would literally appoint the CEO of Shell Oil, presumably current CEO Peter Voser, to the commission because Shell Oil has “been abused by the EPA.” Earlier in his remarks, Cain had riffed for a few moments about how Shell had faced delays in a drilling plan due to EPA regulations:

CAIN: The EPA is the biggest barrier to more permits, more drilling, more shale oil production. So I’m going to have a regulatory reduction commission that I’m going to appoint that’s going to go in and determine how we make things move faster. Some regulations we need. I’m not anti-regulation. I’m just anti-too much regulation. And the people on this commission are going to be people who know something about coal, oil, shale oil, natural gas, and they will be people whose businesses or individuals who have been abused by the EPA. If you’ve been abused by the EPA like Shell Oil, I’m going to ask the CEO of Shell Oil would he like to be on this commission, and give me some recommendations. The people closest to the problem are the ones who can solve the problem.

Watch it:

Later in the day, at his next campaign stop in Iowa Falls, Cain told a campaign supporter about his EPA plan, and said his energy executives-led commission would kill off regulations.

Cain is particularly close to oil CEOs. Shortly after announcing his intention to run for the presidency, Cain met with Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries in Palm Springs, California. As ThinkProgress reported, other oil executives were in attendance.

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE:  Professors Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley step into the twilight zone of climate change scepticism — where the sun is made of iron and the royals are out to get you. The Conversation cross-post

Science, like much human endeavour, thrives on debate.

Climate deniers want to participate in this debate as equal partners, and feel that they are entitled to be heard and to be taken seriously. This is quite understandable, but by itself does not create an entitlement.

In science, to actually contribute at the forefront of a field one has to earn credibility, not demand it. Being taken seriously is a privilege, not a right.

In science, this privilege is earned by not only following conventional norms of honesty and transparency but by supporting one’s opinions with evidence and reasoned argument in the peer-reviewed literature.

This is what makes science self-correcting. If arguments turn out to be wrong, in time they are caught and corrected by other scientists. It is virtually impossible to publish long-refuted nonsense in good peer-reviewed journals.

Climate deniers, by contrast, seem to avoid the peer-reviewed literature or publish by sometimes abusing the system. Nor do the deniers turn up and present their ideas at any of the many international scientific conferences, open to anyone, where these issues have been explored for decades.

Deniers simply keep restating nonsensical arguments that the scientific community has known to be wrong for a long time.

Read more

Dr. John Abraham, a University of St. Thomas scientist with the Clmate Science Rapid Response Team, offers these comments to ThinkProgress Green on Vice President Al Gore‘s Rolling Stone article on the battle between “Science and Reason” and “Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues”:

Former Vice President Al Gore’s comments reflect a real frustration that is shared by scientists who are concerned about this issue. Every year, the evidence becomes stronger and stronger as our Earth warms, the seas rise, and the ice melts. Every year, the denial machine trots out new arguments that tries to explain away what we can see with our eyes. Every year, the ranks of the denialists get thinner and thinner and the stature of their members decreases.

Despite this overwhelming consensus amongst people who understand climate, there is a gulf found within the general public. Many people are either not concerned or are dismissive. Part of the apathy is a result of terrible media coverage and a well-funded industrial force against taking climate action. When our media defers to experts from think tanks as experts in climate science, everyone loses.

Al Gore’s statements reflected a hope that many scientists shared, that the new administration would champion the cause of environmental stewardship and would resist the forces of denial. Instead of taking a strong and public stand, the current administration has chosen to work within other frameworks, including using stimulus funding to promote renewable every and relying upon the EPA to work on greenhouse mitigation.

It is not clear which approach would have a greater chance at success. What is clear is that every year we delay action is another year that other countries increase their technological lead on us in this important area of clean power production. Every year that we delay, the solutions become more expensive. Every year we delay is a year that groups like the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute win, and the rest of us lose.