[rmxt]

Urging everyone to approach issues rationally is fine, but how can you excuse the inherent irrationality ("isn't a situation where ... did anything inappropriate") in denying that climate change/global warming is happening? (I am not saying it is or is not anthropogenic -- as far as I know, that is less settled.)

[jmaygarden]

However, nothing about climate change was actually deleted. The website was replaced wholesale. What is rational about considering the act of not posting new climate change content on a new website within hours of the inauguration of a new president inappropriate?

[rmxt]

Not sure I understand what you are asking. Could you rephrase it?

I think it is irrational that one can develop energy policy, including promoting the increased use of non-renewable resources like coal and gas, without including anything explicitly acknowledging the roles that their extraction and use may have in climate change or environmental damage.

[iaw]

> how can you excuse the inherent irrationality ... in denying that climate change/global warming is happening?

I had no intention of excusing the irrationality of climate change denial. It's not that the Trump administration went in and only deleted references to climate change at noon, they replaced the entire site.

I have no expectation for them to change position and build out a portion of their new website to address climate change, why would I? I think there position is irrational but the new site design is not a place to fight it.