On August 20, 2014 at 07:24PM, Tom at Watery Foundation published the following article:
Scott said nothing significant during the meeting and left without making any remarks. Next day, journalist Craig Patrick tried very hard to get Scott to say something relevant to the science lesson. Nope, wasn’t gonna happen:
Scott says he is interested in “solutions” to climate change but not interested in what causes the climate to change. Will contortions like that allow him to keep the votes of climate change deniers while picking up a few other votes from people who don’t understand the issue at all? Scott thinks so.