A Quote by Scott Pruitt

What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2. — © Scott Pruitt
What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2.
It is important that carbon storage is carefully regulated, that the process is transparent to the public, and that there is a clear accounting of what happened to the CO2. This is particularly true of underground storage, where there is always a small chance that pressurized CO2 could escape.
We are a little messianic about our comic books! We feel like they deserve to be more legitimate, they deserve to get more attention, they deserve to have better placement, and they deserve to have a broader audience.
Barring some national security concern, I see no valid reason to keep peer-reviewed research from the public. To be clear, by 'peer review,' I mean scientific review and not a political filter.
I think people have a legitimate right to minimise their tax obligations if they can, but they should pay their fair whack. I do think it's important to be transparent.
I think you can't have this discussion and you can't have a discussion about feminism and the consciousness of the world without having a discussion about what has happened to men lately. They're holding the other side of the bag.
I am convinced that in order for you, as a patient, to be protected, it has to be transparent, evidence-based, objective information. Not self-serving information. Not pharma-driven information. Not ad-driven information. It is transparent, objective, evidence-based information.
They [Japanese whalers] haven't produced a single peer-reviewed international scientific paper in 23 years.
The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.
The American people deserve truthfulness, not more political campaigning. The American people deserve a responsible government that seeks to address their needs, not more ideological dogma.
Conflicts of interest' arise when you're not - when you're sneaky about it, when you're shady about it, when you're not transparent about it. If you tell everyone, 'Here's what's going on. Here's the process; here are the people that are playing a role' - that's being transparent.
It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time ... I am an interpreter of interpretations.
It is simply not true that war is solely a means to an end, nor do people necessarily fight in order to obtain this objective or that. In fact, the opposite is true: people very often take up one objective or another precisely in order that they may fight.
The president [Barack Obama] understands that the country's very concerned about [terrorism] issue. And I think what you're going to hear from him is a discussion about what government's doing to ensure all of our highest priority, the protection of the American people.
But it is as silly to think about peer-to-peer as applying just to music as it would have been to think about the Internet as applying just to pornography. Whatever the initial use of the technology, it has nothing to do with the potential of the architecture to serve many other extremely important functions.
Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.
It's vital that my partner and I are in constant discussion with each other and with our sons about how they're developing emotionally and physically within their peer groups.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!