Do you support or oppose the EPA’s push to rescind its 2009 declaration that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare?

Support (24%) – "The Earth's temp has been going up and down since it's beginning including ice ages and warm spells. Science cannot currently produce models to predict 'weather' of this sort accurately. It's time to stop with the con artistry to make money off 'carbon credits' and start being real; warmings biggest proponents fly private jets, falsify data, own several houses and leave cars running while giving warming speeches leading me to believe they don't believe their own utterings. Lets work on improving things that are real and verifiable like efficiency, costs, health care (outcomes instead of pharma sales or hospital revenue), and processes."

• "Scientists consensus does not mean fact which what this is all about. I have always believed in climate change but that man’s impact is minimal. We should always try to keep our environment clean as humanly possible."

"Scientific research is unclear on the effects of human activity of global climate change, the single biggest contributor to climate is solar activity, which we can do nothing about. Regulating human activity will have at best a minimal effect on climate."

Oppose (67%) – "Climate change is not going away, no matter what Republicans want to believe. It's happening. It's here. This action undermines all of our futures. It's shortsighted at best; nefarious at worst."

• "While I do think climate has been overblown and politicized, we do need to take care of our planet. It's just good practice to do our best to have clean air, green spaces, and a healthy environment."

"This is a political move, simple as that. The data overwhelmingly supports the EPA's 2009 position but the corporate interests and businesses that support Trump do not like the regulations or effects of reality. Thus, the pushback on established science through the use of "reports" by fringe scientists. Uncommon or non-popular views should never be dismissed out of hand, but these positions are not being so dismissed, they have been addressed, disproven, and shown to be out of touch with the evidence and data."

• "It’s called powerful people using their available methods to ruin the world for the rest of us. There is scientific proof that climate change is causing rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and more frequent severe weather. Cherry-picking scientists with disagreements does not refute the already-established facts of science."

"This decision is absolutely idiotic, short sighted, and done at the behest of big corporate interests. It’s an undeniable scientific fact that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Climate change is the perfect example of a negative externality. Regulations are absolutely required to prevent corporate interests from damaging our environment."

• "The preponderance of evidence from the last two decades fully supports the dangers of greenhouse-gas emissions. The fact that the administration specifically commissioned a report from "top scientists" who are avowed climate skeptics without the weight of peer reviewed evidence behind them should raise major alarm bells for everyone that this is a decision driven by right-wing ideology. I'm frankly surprised that they even bothered to create a report to point at to support their position."

Unsure/other (9%) – "If climate change is global, I’m not sure the EPA of the United States is going to have much effect in reigning in the worst contributors (China, Russia, India). Having said that, doing nothing will only exacerbate the problem. We should at least try to do something about our own contribution to the situation. Getting that done will be a gargantuan task when corporate profits and political grandstanding are the main drivers of seemingly every issue facing us today. We as individuals need to be diligent to do our part."