Just a thought. Would
you agree with the following statement?
“Healthy debate is the
lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the
major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists
continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection
to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms,
public forums, and the halls of Congress.”
In
particular, is the statement “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree
and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of
mankind” correct or not? Is there
absolute unanimity among scientists about the exact extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of
mankind? Indeed, is there any scientific field or any scientific issue in which
there is absolute unanimity among scientists? (In case you are uncertain about
your answer, see for example Five
Things Climate Scientists Actually Disagree About by a climate scientist.)
Why
am I asking this question? Because it is
on the basis of this statement alone, made in a National Review article you can read in its entirety here,
that the New York Times on Dec 7 claimed that the newly-appointed head of the
EPA. Scott Pruitt, was a “climate change denier”, a claim that the rest of the
press promptly echoed. You can read the original New York Times article here.
Pruitt
is certainly against using political pressure to stifle debate and dissent,
which is the point of his National Review
article. And he certainly thinks the EPA has on occasion exceeded its
authority, a point which even the US Supreme Court seems to agree on. He may or
may not be a climate change denier, but do you agree with the New York Times that the statement above is
adequate evidence that he is?
And if you don't agree that this is adequate evidence, how much trust do you now put in the New York Times (and other liberal press) accusations against other Trump cabinet and administration appointments?
Posts
