You can almost feel the sense of betrayal emanating from this diatribe from the Environmental Defense Fund’s Steve Schwartzman, denouncing two cabinet appointments in Brazil. You see, Brazil has a leftist government, and until now had mouthed all the politically correct positions at international gatherings. And worst of all, the skeptic is a communist – a real one.

But days before the start of the new year, Rousseff appointed two ministers who cast doubt on Brazil’s leadership and bode ill for the atmosphere – especially given increases in Brazil’s deforestation rates from 2012–2013 and signs that deforestation may be once again be on the increase. (snip) Bad choice #1: Katia Abreu, Minister of Agriculture The new Minister of Agriculture Katia Abreu was the president of the National Confederation of Agriculture (the national association of large and middle-size landowners and ranchers). As senator, she led the Congress’ powerful anti-environmental, anti-indigenous “bancada ruralista”, or large landowners’, caucus and earned the title among environmentalists of “chainsaw queen.”

Well, if greenies call her a nasty name, that’s pretty conclusive. We wouldn’t want people who actually own land to have their interests represented. And God forbid, Brazil might actually lift some of its rural people out of poverty. Can’t have that.

Bad choice #2: Aldo Rebelo, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Rebelo is clearly out of touch with modern science on climate change. The new Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Aldo Rebelo is a long-time Communist Party of Brazil congressman and vocal anti-environmental advocate, and the principal author of the divisive and controversial Forest Code revision. Rebelo is also on the record rejecting climate science.

By “climate science” Schwartzman means computer models that have failed to predict the actual climate for over a decade and a half. Genuine science is all about skepticism and testing predictions with data.

Interestingly, old-line Communist Rebelo is on exactly the same page on climate science as the hardest of the hard-core tea partiers in the United States: it’s all speculation – “scientism” – not real science.

Here Schwartzman’s emotions get the better of him, and he reveals his true perspective. The phrase “hard-core tea partiers” is a tell – this is about expanding governmental powers, not about science or the environment. He can barely believe that a communist (who apparently should be an ally of a leftist group masquerading as environmentalists) could possibly be a true advocate of science, which is always skeptical.

I wonder what he does with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its 2,000+ climate scientists and experts, its ever-increasing certainty that climate change is mostly caused by human beings and will, if not urgently addressed, lead to catastrophic consequences? Or the clear evidence, rehashed at every climate conference for at least the last decade, that the poorest countries that have contributed the least to the problem are those that are already suffering the most drastic consequences in the form of sea level rise, floods and droughts?

Once again, the familiar refrain that since is a matter of majority vote or ”consensus.” That truly is “scientism.” As is the notion that science is science because some people yell louder (“ever-increasing certainty”) than others.

There has to be a backstory on the appointments. Maybe it has to do with securing a coalition. Or maybe it has to do with the realization that warmists will impoverish the world, something wealthy residents of Marin County, California can tolerate more than the poor of Brazil.

Hat tip: S. Fred Singer