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."
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...— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) October 15, 2020
But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier. https://t.co/R7oOIyBsHC
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."