Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the third day of her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill on October 14, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images)
Oct 15, 2020
Climate activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday ridiculed Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's claim during the third day of her confirmation hearings that she does not "think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I will do."
Replying to questions posed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Wednesday, Barrett refused to agree that anthropogenic global warming exists, adding that she hasn't "studied scientific data" enough to have an "informed opinion."
In response to Barrett's denial of the link between surging greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, Thunberg tweeted: "To be fair, I don't have any 'views on climate change' either. Just like I don't have any 'views' on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis, nor evolution... But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier."
\u201cTo be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just like I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis nor evolution...\nBut understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier.\u201d— Greta Thunberg (@Greta Thunberg) 1602769312
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday after Barrett said during the hearings that she does not "have firm views" on climate change, progressives sounded the alarm about the existential threat of appointing to the Supreme Court a "climate denier" who will spend decades undermining environmental laws in favor of industry interests.
"Republicans have trotted out the 'I'm not a scientist' trick for years now to deflect questions about climate change," wrote Zoya Teirstein on Wednesday in Grist. "The thing is, you don't have to be a scientist, like at all, to understand that the planet is in grave danger. Just like you don't have to be a doctor to grasp the severity of a cancer diagnosis, or a mechanic to understand that your car is totaled."
"On climate change, the science is clear... the evidence is irrefutable," said advocacy group Demand Justice on social media. "Why isn't Amy Coney Barrett willing to acknowledge it?"
One key reason for Barrett's anti-scientific views, according to critics, is her commitment to furthering the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which is facing a series of climate liability lawsuits and stands to lose billions if aggressive action is taken to curb carbon emissions.
As The Daily Poster's David Sirota, Andrew Perez, and Walker Bragman reported Wednesday morning, Barrett has ties to Royal Dutch Shell, where her father spent years as a lawyer, and Big Oil is hopeful that Barrett's appointment to the high court will bolster a regressive, corporate-friendly approach to climate policy.
Sirota and Perez wrote Thursday in Jacobin that "neither Blumenthal nor any other Democratic senator bothered to ask about Barrett's ties to Shell--even though the Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case involving the company."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday ridiculed Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's claim during the third day of her confirmation hearings that she does not "think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I will do."
Replying to questions posed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Wednesday, Barrett refused to agree that anthropogenic global warming exists, adding that she hasn't "studied scientific data" enough to have an "informed opinion."
In response to Barrett's denial of the link between surging greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, Thunberg tweeted: "To be fair, I don't have any 'views on climate change' either. Just like I don't have any 'views' on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis, nor evolution... But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier."
\u201cTo be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just like I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis nor evolution...\nBut understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier.\u201d— Greta Thunberg (@Greta Thunberg) 1602769312
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday after Barrett said during the hearings that she does not "have firm views" on climate change, progressives sounded the alarm about the existential threat of appointing to the Supreme Court a "climate denier" who will spend decades undermining environmental laws in favor of industry interests.
"Republicans have trotted out the 'I'm not a scientist' trick for years now to deflect questions about climate change," wrote Zoya Teirstein on Wednesday in Grist. "The thing is, you don't have to be a scientist, like at all, to understand that the planet is in grave danger. Just like you don't have to be a doctor to grasp the severity of a cancer diagnosis, or a mechanic to understand that your car is totaled."
"On climate change, the science is clear... the evidence is irrefutable," said advocacy group Demand Justice on social media. "Why isn't Amy Coney Barrett willing to acknowledge it?"
One key reason for Barrett's anti-scientific views, according to critics, is her commitment to furthering the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which is facing a series of climate liability lawsuits and stands to lose billions if aggressive action is taken to curb carbon emissions.
As The Daily Poster's David Sirota, Andrew Perez, and Walker Bragman reported Wednesday morning, Barrett has ties to Royal Dutch Shell, where her father spent years as a lawyer, and Big Oil is hopeful that Barrett's appointment to the high court will bolster a regressive, corporate-friendly approach to climate policy.
Sirota and Perez wrote Thursday in Jacobin that "neither Blumenthal nor any other Democratic senator bothered to ask about Barrett's ties to Shell--even though the Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case involving the company."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday ridiculed Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's claim during the third day of her confirmation hearings that she does not "think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I will do."
Replying to questions posed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Wednesday, Barrett refused to agree that anthropogenic global warming exists, adding that she hasn't "studied scientific data" enough to have an "informed opinion."
In response to Barrett's denial of the link between surging greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures, Thunberg tweeted: "To be fair, I don't have any 'views on climate change' either. Just like I don't have any 'views' on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis, nor evolution... But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier."
\u201cTo be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just like I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis nor evolution...\nBut understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier.\u201d— Greta Thunberg (@Greta Thunberg) 1602769312
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday after Barrett said during the hearings that she does not "have firm views" on climate change, progressives sounded the alarm about the existential threat of appointing to the Supreme Court a "climate denier" who will spend decades undermining environmental laws in favor of industry interests.
"Republicans have trotted out the 'I'm not a scientist' trick for years now to deflect questions about climate change," wrote Zoya Teirstein on Wednesday in Grist. "The thing is, you don't have to be a scientist, like at all, to understand that the planet is in grave danger. Just like you don't have to be a doctor to grasp the severity of a cancer diagnosis, or a mechanic to understand that your car is totaled."
"On climate change, the science is clear... the evidence is irrefutable," said advocacy group Demand Justice on social media. "Why isn't Amy Coney Barrett willing to acknowledge it?"
One key reason for Barrett's anti-scientific views, according to critics, is her commitment to furthering the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which is facing a series of climate liability lawsuits and stands to lose billions if aggressive action is taken to curb carbon emissions.
As The Daily Poster's David Sirota, Andrew Perez, and Walker Bragman reported Wednesday morning, Barrett has ties to Royal Dutch Shell, where her father spent years as a lawyer, and Big Oil is hopeful that Barrett's appointment to the high court will bolster a regressive, corporate-friendly approach to climate policy.
Sirota and Perez wrote Thursday in Jacobin that "neither Blumenthal nor any other Democratic senator bothered to ask about Barrett's ties to Shell--even though the Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case involving the company."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.