News Productions Multimedia Marketplace
Sign up for Grabien Breaking News Alerts

For full access to this clip, save a copy to your eLocker, buy an embed code, or log into your GrabienGold account.
 Use clipper to adjust file type
Tucker Carlson Grills Activist: Your Response to the Nomination of Tillerson Seems Like a ‘Knee Jerk Response’
Fox News

Name: Fox News


Tucker Carlson Tonight

Name: Tucker Carlson Tonight


Tucker Carlson

Name: Tucker Carlson

Employment: Fox News; Daily Caller

Position: Co-host; Editor-in-chief

, Fred Krupp

Name: Fred Krupp

CARLSON: “Well, good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson tonight” the trump transition has made 12 cabinet picks so far. Some have been widely lauded some have now. Perhaps some none fiercer on the left than nominee for secretary of state Rex tillerson. Big business pawn of Vladimir Putin. Tillerson is likely to have boisterous nomination hearings. Among the upset is environmental groups for what tillerson does for a living. Environmental defense fund reacted to the news this way trump’s nomination of Exxon mobile CEO of secretary of state is another sign he is putting the interest of the oil and gas industry ahead of the interest of the American people. Mr. Krupp joins you now. Thank you for coming on.”
KRUPP: “Glad to be here.”
CARLSON: “So, I think he is kind of a reasonable guy, environmentalist but sort of market oriented. And that seemed like a knee jerk response to the nomination of Rex Tillerson. Maybe more aimed at your donors in West L.A. than the rest of the country. You really think Trump appointed him so he could increase the fortunes of the oil and gas business?”
KRUPP: “Tucker, we should take a step back from Mr. Tillerson, the question is the entire slate of nominees from the president-elect.”
CARLSON: “This was Mr. Tillerson you were referring, to I think.”
KRUPP: “Yes. But is he part of a slate. I don’t object to having a business voice in the cabinet that makes a lot of sense. But when you look at the fact that it’s Mr. Perry who railroaded through — fast tracked 13 permits to build coal fired power plants in Texas. When you look at the fact that Scott Pruitt head of EPA has also sided with the oil and gas industry and tried to rip down every air pollution safeguard ... That’s the issue. It’s a question of balance. This cabinet is way out of balance on these issues.”
>> Okay. But with respect, this is what guests always do when they don’t want to answer a direct question. They deflect it to something much large are. Not about this it’s a larger question. I’m asking you to respond to a quote from you about Rex tillerson saying this is a sign that trump is putting the interests of the oil and gas business ahead of America. I’m saying it’s a pretty heavy charge. Do you have any evidence for it?
>> Well, the evidence is when you look at the cabinet there are three people that I just mentioned all representing one point of view. Good policy, tucker, is when you have a diversity of views. I appreciate you mentioned that the environmental defense fund is market-oriented. We zorkd with president Reagan and his cabinet. We have worked with President Bush father and son. Just this past year we passed a toxic safety bill 403 votes to 12 in the house of representatives. We don’t have a knee jerk response. But what we would like to see is balance and especially, especially at the E.P.A. Mr. Pruitt is outside of the mainstream.
>> Okay. You don’t like Mr. Pruitt. Okay. This is the secretary of state. And what I found so dishonest about this statement is that you’re actually not on a completely different page from Rex tillerson. He has come out for carbon tax. He was supportive of the Paris agreement this spring. Those are positions you have. You have lost audio. You can hear me? Mr. Krupp? Unfortunately, he can’t. We will come back to Fred Krupp. I think we are working on the audio right now. The point is, look, if you can hear me, Mr. Krupp, that Rex tillerson is not on the opposite side of you on these issues. The guy is for carbon tax. He has been on the bunch of sides of the carbon issues. You don’t say that at all and nor do you point out co 2 has gone down to other countries in part by exploration of Exxon Mobil made gas more affordable as opposed to coal for electricity generation. That’s a real point you ignore because it’s not serving your interest in fundraising.
>> No. Actually, tucker, we don’t make judgments on the basis of fundraising. I will tell you right now I appreciate the fact that Mr. Tillerson has acknowledged that climate change is a real problem. I appreciate the fact that he has voiced support for not only a carbon fee but also the Paris agreement. And I think it’s good for America that the price of National Guard has gone down — natural gas has gone down. It does concern me that Mr. Tillerson, as head of Exxon and part of the American petroleum institute has been against safeguards to make sure that we don’t waste natural gas by throwing it into the air. It does concern me that he is part of a slate of candidates that represents just one view and getting, you know, pack to my major concern about the selection and the nominee that we are opposing, Scott Pruitt. We are putting him in charge of an agency when he has build his career out of tearing down protections of the American public from clean air. The good neighbor rule is a rule designed to prevent bad air from wafting into states. It saves 34,000 lives a year. Mr. Pruitt has been against that he has been against protections on Mercury.
>> Well, to say that it saves 34,000 lives a year. Look, we are getting into the realm of speculative when you start saying things like that. You have a point of view and that’s fine. That’s what makes honest dialogue impossible when you and others use the term denier to describe people who are asking in some cases entirely legitimate questions about climate science. And isn’t the essence of science that you form hypothesis based on observation and then you test and retest the Ohio pot sis. You are basically saying people who ask questions should be shut down and you espouse using the power of government to crush those people in encouraging —
>> — Tucker, I don’t think that’s fair. First of all, I haven’t used the term denier in talking to you.
>> Your group does. I was just on the environmental defense fund website and you are calling people deniers who are in some cases actually credible questions. Isn’t that science?
>> Science is based on questioning and we are for that.
>> Okay.
>> But putting climate science to one side, the concern about Scott Pruitt is he has been out of the mainstream on American health protection.
>> You are not answering my questions. You are instead diverting. I’m asking you about the specific United States of the term denier it’s use antiscience. People committed to the method would never use the term denier. Science is welcoming and open-minded. So will you pledge now to stop using that word and to ask your employees to do the same?
>> I that science is settled by a vast majority of scientists.
>> Since you believe the science is settled. We can agree that the Earth appears to be warming to. What extent is that the result of human activity and to what extent is that the result of natural cycles over which we have no control?
>> Tucker, there is no question.
>> The science is settled?
>> There is no question that natural cycles play a part. There is no question.
>> How big a part since science is settled you would know the proportion how big a part?
>> Of the incremental warming that we have seen since the industrial revolution less than 10%. And the models tease this out. So human caused warming is the overwhelming cause.
>> Less than 10%. What’s the number since do you this for a living and you are familiar with the science? I just want to hold you to it if I could.
>> Yeah. I can’t give you the percentage off the top of my head, tucker, but it is a minor component.
>> It’s a minor component. All right. My last question to you is if I questioned that and I said look, I’m not denying all of climate science but a lot of the models have been wrong as you know over the past 60 years. They have been. And you would concede that. Maybe it’s 50%. Would you call me a denier or skeptic or would you say no that’s the people in science ought to be asking.
>> Tucker, I want to get my people in science together with people you want to have debate this and let’s have a conversation.
>>. No I’m asking you as someone who represents settled science. What’s the answer?
>> I welcome the questioning. I think when you look at the evidence, you’ll come to the same conclusion I have.
>> All right. Fred, thanks a lot for joining us tonight. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Please wait...