Out of order: Courts shouldn’t rule based on ‘trust us’ science



A training manual for federal judges just ditched its biased chapter on climate change. Good. But the same manual still peddles quackery about how science works — and it risks teaching the judiciary to treat models and “consensus” as proof.

The “How Science Works” chapter in the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” invites judges to overvalue computer models built on unproven assumptions and to accept “consensus” as evidence even when empirical testing cuts the other way. That is not science. It is a distortion of the scientific method, which demands observation, experimentation, and results that can be challenged and falsified in the real world.

This is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

The problem runs deeper than emphasis. In defining hypothesis, theory, and scientific law, the writers omit testing, observation, and experimentation. They also fail to acknowledge that all three can be disproven — even though demonstrating falseness has long been central to scientific progress. Science advances not by protecting favored conclusions but by trying — relentlessly — to break them.

The chapter even claims that science cannot “disprove hypotheses.” That is historically indefensible. Science has disproven hypotheses repeatedly, and entire revolutions have turned on that process.

Geocentrism gave way to Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Phrenology, eugenics, spontaneous generation, and miasma theory all enjoyed “consensus” before evidence refuted them. Alfred Wegener’s plate tectonics also met decades of rejection before the evidence won. Consensus delayed the truth. It did not deliver it.

The chapter also stumbles over prediction. It says prediction is a logical consequence of a hypothesis, “not necessarily what will happen in the future.” That drains prediction of its most important feature: testable claims about what should occur under specified conditions. A hypothesis can be tested against the past as well, but the logic stays the same — it must match reality.

Then the chapter offers reassurance that reveals the posture: “The fact that there is room for improvement in the process of science does not necessitate distrust of hypotheses that have gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community and about which consensus has been achieved.” In practice, that treats consensus as a shield against contrary evidence — a common ploy among climate alarmists.

RELATED: Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation

Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/Boston Globe via Getty Images

In places, the chapter contradicts itself, sometimes gesturing at rigor, elsewhere diminishing falsification and redefining key terms. The result is confusion. Its length and muddled definitions do not clarify how science works; they blur it. Worse, they introduce judges to wrongheaded practices — overuse of models and consensus — as if they can settle disputed scientific questions.

That is not the empirical tradition of Isaac Newton or Marie Curie. It is the posture of pseudoscience: conclusions protected by authority and repetition rather than disciplined testing against reality.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg removed the manual’s climate chapter after objections from state attorneys general and others. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine still hosts the manual — including “How Science Works” — on its website.

Rosenberg, as head of the Federal Judicial Center, should take the next step and remove this chapter as well. Federal judges and the public they serve deserve a guide to science that prizes evidence over consensus and observation over simulation.

Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work?



When President Trump boycotted the U.N. climate summit, many Americans who aren’t buying the elites' climate fearmongering were pleased, hopeful that Trump’s move might weaken the globalist plans.

But after the global elites appeared to use the president’s absence to push extreme climate policies, some are wondering if the president could have made a mistake.

“We’ve got Trump in the White House, and of course he actually boycotted the summit. We reached out to the State Department. They told us they deliberately chose not to send anybody. So there was no U.S. delegation for the first time in 30 years of these, and that made for a very interesting situation,” journalist Alex Newman tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.


“And you know, a lot of Americans thought that was great. Hooray. And a lot of the climate skeptics also thought so. But some of the globalists at the U.N. conference also said, ‘Hey, this is a great opportunity, because the United States is still involved in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, but they’re not here to obstruct passage of an ambitious deal,’” Newman explains.

“‘So let’s do some great stuff, and then when Trump is gone in three and a half years, we’ll impose that on Americans,’” he adds.

And the agreement they passed without Trump’s presence included “mention of a carbon budget.”

“They claim that four-fifths of the CO2 that humans can be allowed to emit has already been emitted,” Newman tells Glenn.

“I think the strategy for these people, Glenn, is ‘Hey, we’ve got Trump for three and a half more years. Let’s just keep our heads down. We know that he doesn’t believe us. We know that the American people don’t believe us. So let’s just not talk about it too loudly,’” he adds.

“So was this a mistake by not showing up?” Glenn asks.

“I don’t know,” Newman answers. “I know some of the people down at the U.N. summit thought this was a good opportunity for them, but you know, Trump’s not done.”

“I’ve spoken with people at EPA; I’ve spoke with people at the State Department, who have said that they are seriously considering the possibility of withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change,” he continues.

“We have to,” Glenn interjects.

“Yeah, that seems like a no-brainer. … In fact, before he went into the White House, he said one of the top priorities for the MAGA movement and the United States needs to be to decisively crush this climate hysteria hoax,” Newman says, adding, “So he’s really serious about it.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Radical climate activism is causing toxic hysteria. Here’s how to stop it.



Climate change is no longer just a conversation about science; it’s become a belief system, and for some people, a dangerous one. And Lucy Biggers, former climate influencer for NowThis and producer of a viral 2018 AOC campaign video, knows this all too well.

“I was actually talking to someone yesterday and she was like, ‘Oh my gosh, I love your content. I’ve lost a friend to the climate movement,’” Biggers tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

The girl lost to the climate movement went to a college in Maine and no longer wants to have kids for the sake of saving the environment.


“In this really culty climate movement that she was in, they suggest suicide. It's really bad. So there are people out there who are really, really radicalized. I don’t think people really understand the mindset. I was never that bad,” Biggers says.

In order to help those trapped in the climate cult, Biggers believes relaying a historical perspective to them could show at least a little of the light.

“Human life used to be toil and short and you would die young because of just how unsafe it was and difficult it was. And now, thanks to the technology of fossil fuels, we can have, you know, a beautiful set like this and conversation like this under lights and technology,” she tells Stuckey.

“We live such amazing lives that kings even in the 1700s would not have lived as good as us. And so, I think bringing in that perspective of, ‘Hey, we’re not in late-stage capitalism, 10 years away from dying, but look at these facts, look at how good we have it compared to our ancestors,’” she continues.

“Even for women, I think realizing in areas that don’t have access to fossil fuels, five hours a day could be spent collecting dung and wood to cook for your family. Fuel collection is how they spend, like that’s their job, 40 hours a week,” she says.

“Shifting some of this guilt into gratitude, I think goes so far,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Apple hired THIS famous actress for the WORST climate change commercial yet



Octavia Spencer may just have played her worst role yet.

The actress starred in a bizarre five-minute Apple ad showing CEO Tim Cook and staff being scolded over their green credentials by her character: Mother Nature.

Cook later posted on X (formerly Twitter) to say: “At Apple, we believe that climate change is one of the world’s most urgent priorities and we are deeply committed to doing our part.”

Stu Burguiere is not a fan.

“Cringey is a good word for it, but it does not describe how awful this actually is,” he says, before tearing into the climate change-inspired spot.

The ad begins with Octavia Spencer being welcomed as Mother Nature by Tim Cook, who asks “How was the weather getting in?”

The weather then changes, and Spencer rolls her eyes, looks at Cook, and says, “However I wanted it to be.”

“Ah, see, she could change the weather, wherever she wants. And here’s the thing, then just change it so global warming's not happening. Right? Couldn’t you just stop all the catastrophes?” Stu asks, adding, “Well, I guess that’s not going to be answered by this stupid Apple ad.”

While he believes the ad itself is awful, he sees right through it — to the actual point. “This is really just a piece of corporate propaganda to try to make you believe that they are the greenest, most nice company in the entire universe.”

The ad continues with Spencer questioning the steps Apple has taken to stop climate change.

“You promised to bring Apple’s entire carbon footprint to zero. By 2030. Henry David Thoreau over here said we have a profound opportunity to build a more sustainable future for the planet we share,” she says, referring to Cook as Thoreau.

Again, Stu recognizes the scene for what it is.

While Spencer’s character is Mother Nature that’s scolding Apple employees, she represents a very real person.

“Instead of Mother Nature coming into these corporate boards and demanding they change the way they make their products and judging them like Mother Nature is judging Apple, there’s just some paid activist who comes in and has some, you know, corporate initiative to spread to stockholders and ESG people and try to make it look like they actually care about the environment,” Stu says.


Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sen. Joe Manchin shares his buyer's remorse for becoming deciding vote on 'Inflation Reduction Act'



Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is expressing buyer's remorse for helping President Joe Biden pass the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act."

In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday, Manchin said the law, which does not actually reduce inflation, is being used to advance the Biden administration's climate agenda.

According to Manchin, one of the central goals of the law was to ensure "energy security," but the Biden administration has completely ignored the agreement made with Manchin.

Manchin Threatens To Repeal Inflation Reduction Act www.youtube.com

"This piece of legislation was balanced," Manchin told Sean Hannity. "[In] 10 years we're going to have enough fossil [fuel] to run our country and to help our allies around the world. And we will also be investing in new technology for the future. Now, they've disregarded that completely."

He added, "This was energy security and you have not heard 'energy security' out of their mouth since it was passed. It's [now] all about environment."

The West Virginia Democrat then promised he would support repealing the Inflation Reduction Act if the Biden administration does not make good on its promises to invest in American energy security.

"Let me make it very clear: If this administration does not honor what it said it would do and basically continue to liberalize that — the $384 billion is what we're supposed to invest over 10 years and they blow that out of the water and it's six or seven or eight hundred — I will do everything I can in my power to prevent that from happening," Manchin said.

"And if they don't change, then I would vote to repeal my own bill," he declared.

On Twitter, Manchin shared his interview with Hannity and used even stronger language to express his complaints. He accused Biden of using the Inflation Reduction Act to pursue a "radical climate agenda."

\u201cThe Biden administration is breaking its word to the American public by ignoring the text of the #InflationReductionAct to pursue its radical climate agenda. Let me be clear: if this continues, I'll do everything in my power to stop them \u2014 including voting to repeal the IRA.\u201d
— Senator Joe Manchin (@Senator Joe Manchin) 1682388300

The complaints are ironic because the Inflation Reduction Act would never have become law had Manchin not agreed to vote for it. With Manchin's support, Vice President Kamala Harris was able to cast a tie-breaking vote and send the bill to Biden's desk to become law.

Manchin had remained supportive of the bill, saying just two months ago that he did not regret supporting it.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden administration to proceed with light bulb ban, advancing 'climate goals'



Americans can no longer rely upon the warm glow patented by Thomas Edison, deemed inefficient and outmoded by the state. Instead, they will now have to use LED light bulbs.

The Biden administration is set to enforce its ban on incandescent light bulbs in August.

Last April, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would impose two new rules upon the American people as a means of advancing "President Biden's climate goals."

The first coercive measure redefines "general service lamps," and the second implements the minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt for light bulbs that satisfy the revised definition. Together, these rules will prevent retailers from selling incandescent and similar halogen light bulbs.

The new bans announced last year were resultant of President Joe Biden's January 2021 executive order requiring the DOE to make "major revisions" to Trump-era appliance regulation standards, reported Fox News Digital.

Under the Trump administration, Americans were free to choose whatever light bulbs they desired. The Hill reported that the Trump administration was also of the mind that such phase-outs constituted an unnecessary burden on businesses.

Biden's Energy Department suggested that this coercive measure would accelerate the apparent transition already under way.
"The lighting industry is already embracing more energy efficient products, and this measure will accelerate progress to deliver the best products to American consumers and build a better and brighter future," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's latest residential energy consumption survey, 75.2 million American households (~60%) reported having at least one incandescent or halogen bulb in their homes; 8.5 million indicated all of their bulbs were of the verboten variety; 10.19 million indicated most of their light bulbs were incandescent; and another 9.1 million said about half were.

Nearly 50 million of 123.53 million households have reportedly already made the shift approved by the federal government. Wealth is a partial determining factor behind adoption. Households with incomes over $100,000 are more likely to use LEDs than poor households, where LEDs are used only by a minority.

Just the News indicated why this may be the case: The average cost of an LED light bulb is roughly double that of an incandescent light bulb.

Ian Haworth, writing for the Washington Examiner, suggested that the paltry financial benefits promised by the Biden administration are no good if American families can't afford the bulbs to begin with.

Granholm said in another statement that the DOE has worked for over forty years, at the direction of Congress, "to promote innovation, improve consumers' options, and raise efficiency standards for household appliances without sacrificing the reliability and performances that Americans have come to expect."

Concerning the enforcement of the ban, the DOE indicated that it "believes the maximum penalty is both appropriate and necessary."

"This is overregulation on steroids," Ben Lieberman, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital at the time the ban was first announced.

"By using climate as a kind of finger on the scale in favor of tougher standards, I think that's all the more reason to be suspicious that this is going to be a bad deal from a consumer standpoint," he added.

The DOE claimed that the exclusive use of LED light bulbs in conjunction with other regulations will help cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons.

Lieberman and a coalition of free market consumer groups penned a letter to the DOE last year, stating that they "believe that further regulatory interference in the marketplace is unwarranted given that more energy efficient lighting choices, namely light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs, are already available for those consumers who prefer them over incandescent bulbs."

The letter claimed that there is a "lack of evidence to support the agency's claims that the Proposed Rule would have any measurable impact on the climate" and that estimates "of the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions are very speculative, assumption-driven, and prone to bias in the hands of agencies with a regulatory agenda."

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) underscored how this ban is just one among many advanced by the Biden administration: "First, the Biden Admin went after gas stoves. Then, the Biden Admin went after washing machines. Now, the Biden Admin is going after light bulbs. Is there anything they won't try to ban?"

\u201cFirst, the Biden Admin went after gas stoves.\n\nThen, the Biden Admin went after washing machines.\n\nNow, the Biden Admin is going after light bulbs. \n\nIs there anything they won't try to ban?\u201d
— Lance Gooden (@Lance Gooden) 1680463239

Americans have until August 1 to purchase and stockpile incandescent light bulbs and will be within their rights to use them well after the Biden administration's ban on lighting choice goes into effect.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

World Economic Forum calls for transition away from 'ownership' of vehicles to reduce demand



The World Economic Forum is calling for a global transition from away from private ownership of vehicles and other "idle equipment" in order to make a "clean energy revolution" possible.

In a report published on July 18, the international lobbying group based in Switzerland said that "transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel." But the report noted that shortages of these "critical metals" could make renewable fuel technologies prohibitively expensive.

"One obvious route is to mine more virgin material, but this comes with its own costs and potentially unintended consequences," the report said. "Another solution commonly discussed is to recycle more and use the metals already in circulation. The complication is that we do not currently have enough metals in circulation, and even with recycling taken into consideration, mineral production is still forecasted to increase by nearly 500%."

Instead, the WEF made three proposals to build a "fully circular economy" to reduce demand for critical metals, which are used in cellphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and all sorts of technologies.

The first of these proposals is to "go from owning to using." The report argues that private ownership of vehicles and electronic devices is wasteful and inefficient.

"The average car or van in England is driven just 4% of the time. While most already have a personal phone, 39% of workers globally have employer-provided laptops and mobile phones," the report states. "This is not at all resource efficient."

It suggests that expanded use of "car sharing platforms" that let users rent vehicles, for example, could reduce demand for critical metals used to manufacture them.

"To enable a broader transition from ownership to usership, the way we design things and systems need to change too," the report continues. "For example, car sharing is made possible by new keyless unlocking features. Similarly, user profiles that create a distinction for work and personal use on the same device is needed to reduce the number of devices per person. A design process that focuses on fulfilling the underlying need instead of designing for product purchasing is fundamental to this transition.

"This is the mindset needed to redesign cities to reduce private vehicles and other usages," the report states.

The second proposal was to have companies design products for "longevity." The report observed that keeping a smart phone for five years instead of three could reduce the phone's annual carbon footprint by 31%, for example.

Thirdly, the WEF wants to encourage "remanufacturing" to repurpose technologies that no longer can perform their original function to do something else. A retired electric vehicle battery, for example, could be refurbished to power streetlights, the report said.

The report acknowledges that implementing these solutions would require a dramatic upheaval of worldwide economies, which is why it likens the transition to a "revolution." But the report said failing to make these changes would actually harm the environment because mining for "critical metals" harms biodiversity, overuses water, creates waste, and leads to labor and geopolitical issues.

This is the bottom line: Transitioning away from fossil fuels with current technologies will require people to give up rights like private car ownership. The question is whether people will voluntarily surrender their liberties or whether they will be forced to.

White House forced to correct another Biden remark after he claims his climate agenda will save Americans huge amounts of money



The White House ran clean-up once again on Thursday after President Joe Biden made an erroneous claim about renewable energy savings.

What did Biden claim?

After announcing the release of 180 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Biden said the real solution to the ongoing gas price crisis is to "reduce our dependence on fossil fuels altogether."

Biden went on to push his renewable energy agenda, saying Americans "need to embrace all the tools and technologies that can help us free us from our dependence on fossil fuels and move us toward more homegrown clean energy technologies."

Moving from gas to electric vehicles, Biden said, will save Americans on average $80 per month at the gas pump. Then he claimed outfitting your house with clean energy sources will save you $500 per month.

"If your home is powered by safer, cheaper, cleaner electricity, like solar or heat pumps, you can save about $500 a month on average," Biden said.

President Biden delivers remarks on efforts to lower gas prices at the pump — 3/31/2022 youtu.be

But what did the WH do?

After Biden's press conference, the White House published an updated transcript of his remarks. The White House scratched through "month" and replaced it with "year."

The edited transcript was posted online around the same time the Associated Press published a fact check explaining that Biden's savings promise was wildly incorrect, noting "the average person in the U.S. spends far less than [$500] every month on electricity."

President Joe Biden has told Americans they could save $500 a month by transitioning to renewable energy. An AP Fact Check shows he misspoke. The White House actually claims that using green energy might save people $500 a year, not per month.http://apne.ws/QlKRAK3
— The Associated Press (@The Associated Press) 1648766525

Interestingly, the Associated Press explained how Biden's promise of energy savings is misleading, although the outlet did not use that language.

"Even yearly savings, though, would take years for homeowners to realize, given the upfront cost of installing solar panels and heat pumps in homes," the AP explained.

Anything else?

As gas prices remain at historic highs, Biden and senior administration officials have repeatedly touted electric vehicles as a solution to the current crisis. That is why Biden is using the Defense Production Act to incentivize production of minerals required for electric vehicle batteries.

However, the president never discussed the cost of electric vehicles.

According to Kelley Blue Book, the average cost for an electric vehicle in February was $64,685 while the average cost of a compact car was $26,196 and the average cost of a compact SUV or crossover was $33,732.

Considering the median household income in 2019 was $67,521, the reality is that most Americans cannot afford electric vehicles without taking on a massive amount of debt.

Biden admin invents 'Securities and Environment Commission' out of thin air to force climate agenda on US businesses



The Securities and Exchange Commission — a government agency established in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash to protect investors and maintain fair markets — may soon become a key player in imposing President Biden's climate agenda.

In a 3-to-1 vote last week, unelected Democratic bureaucrats who serve as the agency's commissioners voted without authorization from Congress to impose sweeping new rules that require all publicly traded companies to disclose how their business affects "climate change."

According to a press release issued by the SEC, the proposed rules would require businesses to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions along with any and all information relevant to "climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business, results of operations, or financial condition."

In a lengthy statement of dissent, the SEC's lone Republican commissioner, Hester Peirce, quipped that with the move, the agency essentially re-invented itself as the "Securities and Environment Commission" without any say from the American people.

Peirce emphatically argued that the new rules will hamstring businesses with unnecessary and burdensome regulations that will ultimately harm investors and the economy. And besides that, she asserted, the SEC has no authority to enact such rules, seeing as Congress never gave the agency such broad power.

"Congress gave us an important mission — protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering fair, orderly, and efficient markets — and granted us sufficient regulatory authority to achieve that mission," she wrote. "This proposal steps outside our statutory limits by using the disclosure framework to achieve objectives that are not ours to pursue."

Despite the clear overreach, Democrats in Washington appear happy to support the move since the rules fit with the party's aggressive approach to the climate. Many, too, likely see pressuring corporations as an effective step in accomplishing their goals.

In short, the new rules aim to expose companies' track records in keeping with progressives' climate change agenda in hopes that investors will pressure the companies to adopt more environmentally friendly policies and practices.

"It will make it possible for all interested stakeholders, including shareholders, to then push companies to take real action," climate change activist Bill Weihl, formerly of Google and Facebook, told the New York Times.

Speaking with CNBC, Washington-based climate change think tank director Claire Healy celebrated the possibility that carbon-intensive companies may "lose out over time" as pressure mounts and investors are encouraged to divest.

Conservatives, however, have raised the alarm over the proposed rules, noting among other things that they would carry with them an exorbitant cost. Part of that cost would result from the need to hire third-party regulators to gather all the climate-related data the new rules require.

"No longer can a company simply disclose in free form how it imagines climate regulations or bad weather might conceivably affect its business," author and political commentator Steve Milloy wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Examiner. "Instead, companies will be required to have independent certified auditors, think climate accountants, attest to the veracity of the new corporate disclosures."

"In general, this rule will be as costly and burdensome on all businesses as the impact of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley," TheBlaze's Daniel Horowitz warned.

Though Milloy, for his part, seemed confident that the Supreme Court would immediately strike down the rules should they be finalized.

Biden’s energy secretary nominee admits some jobs may be 'sacrificed' to achieve climate agenda



President Biden's nominee for energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, admitted Wednesday during her confirmation hearing that some jobs in the oil and gas industry may be "sacrificed" as a part the administration's climate agenda.

What happened?

The exchange began when Republican Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, noted that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost in states like New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado if Biden's new executive order pausing oil and gas leases on federal land is extended.

"A long-term ban on oil and gas leasing would cost about 62,000 jobs in New Mexico ... about 33,000 jobs in Wyoming, and about 18,000 jobs in Colorado," Barrasso assessed, before directing the question at Granholm.

"I'm just curious how a long-term ban consistent with the president's goal of unifying our country and putting Americans back to work and helping our economies grow, how is that all consistent?" he said.

In response, Granholm stated, "I think the president's plan of building back better would create more jobs in energy, clean energy, than the jobs that might be sacrificed."

Then, as if she suddenly realized she had admitted something she shouldn't have, Granholm demurred, adding, "But I will say this, no job — we don't want to see any jobs sacrificed."

Biden Energy Sec Nom Granholm: “Jobs That Might Be Sacrificed" W/ Biden's Federal Lands Fracking Ban www.youtube.com

The energy secretary nominee then further addressed the contract pause on public lands by saying, "For those states that have these jobs in abundance is something we're going to have to work on together to ensure that people remain employed."

What else?

Later in the hearing, Granholm made sure to express sympathies to those workers who may find themselves out of jobs due the climate-conscious goals of the Biden administration.

"I totally get the concern about job losses. Totally," she said.

Her comments were certainly not out of line with what other Biden administration officials have been saying in recent days.

When pressed on the issue during a press conference Wednesday, Biden's climate envoy John Kerry assured that oil and gas workers displaced from their jobs over the next four years would have "better choices" ahead of them — like making solar panels.

Biden's transportation secretary nominee, Pete Buttigieg, echoed a similar sentiment during his confirmation hearing, saying he and the administration "are very eager to see those workers continue to be employed in good-paying union jobs, even if they might be different ones."