Along with the United States new administration came new voices. New people addressing our country with strategic rhetoric. One of such is the new Environmental Protection Agency chief, Scott Pruitt. Not long after taking office last February, Pruitt explicitly rejected the established science of climate change in a nationally televised interview which, of course, outraged scientists, environmental advocates and his predecessors at the EPA. Pruitt states,
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
Naturally, we are going to see this type of legitimation with someone who has had long-term relationships with oil industries. Of course, we know this statement is total bullsh*t. We also know that there is enough scientific evidence to show that human activity does, in fact, have the biggest impact on our warming climate. Still, his statement is extremely dangerous. Engaging citizens in this discussion put us, and the planet, at risk.
His indirect way of implying that there is uncertainty in climate data is common for science deniers. They emphasize the uncertainty in data while being completely certain in their own position. If he believes we do not know enough about the human impact of a warming climate, then how can he be oh-so-certain with his claim that humans are not the primary contributors? It is ironic, yet society is blinded by these motives and will believe the statements said by those in power. Yes – it is extremely frustrating how easily persuaded people are, but there are enough of what we might call “passive opponents” in the world that will take anything they can get to justify their falseness. However, I have hope that environmental journalists will do what it takes to identify and explain the techniques used to distort the facts so citizens will take a step back and open their eyes to this misinformation.
Naturally, we are going to see this type of legitimation with someone who has had long-term relationships with oil industries. Of course, we know this statement is total bullsh*t. We also know that there is enough scientific evidence to show that human activity does, in fact, have the biggest impact on our warming climate. Still, his statement is extremely dangerous. Engaging citizens in this discussion put us, and the planet, at risk.
His indirect way of implying that there is uncertainty in climate data is common for science deniers. They emphasize the uncertainty in data while being completely certain in their own position. If he believes we do not know enough about the human impact of a warming climate, then how can he be oh-so-certain with his claim that humans are not the primary contributors? It is ironic, yet society is blinded by these motives and will believe the statements said by those in power. Yes – it is extremely frustrating how easily persuaded people are, but there are enough of what we might call “passive opponents” in the world that will take anything they can get to justify their falseness. However, I have hope that environmental journalists will do what it takes to identify and explain the techniques used to distort the facts so citizens will take a step back and open their eyes to this misinformation.
Hey Caitlin, I 100% agree with you. It is completely frustrating when someone like Scott Pruitt, who is in an important position, uses it to misinform the public with uncorroborated opinions. What is more worrying is that Trump's NASA nominee, Jim Bridenstine, was just confirmed head of NASA two days ago by the senate and has in the past made some claims against climate change as well. He has since then moderated his public views but still argues that humans are not the primary cause of it. At this point, I'm not even angry; I'm just scared for the future.
ReplyDelete