Call It What It Is: Climate Cover-Up, Not Climate Denial
Today's remarks by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt that human activity is not "a primary contributor to the global warming that we see" should effectively bring an end to the term formerly known as "climate denial."
Dear media: Call it what it is--a climate cover-up.
As our nation's top official sworn into office to ensure, "national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information," Pruitt's statement on CNBC's "Squawk Box" raises some troubling questions on his ability to carry out his agency's mandate--or even provide a forthright characterization of his agency's scientific work.
"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," Pruitt said on CNBC, "so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact of human activity on the climate?
Not so, according to Pruitt's own EPA and its website on climate change: Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.
Not so, according to the NASA Global Climate Change website, which reminds us that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Among the hundreds of scientific organizations that "hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action," NASA features the statements of every major scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, The Geological Society of America, American Physical Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded: "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
Not so, according to Exxon's own research team in 1977, as Inside Climate News reported in its expose in 2015: "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
Therefore, let's finally put to rest the prevarication of "climate denial" terminology.
Like Pruitt's own entanglement with oil and gas producers, the bizarre anatomy of denial has a long paper trail of "bankrolled public relations firms and their bogus fronts and campaigns have deliberately sought to manipulate the media, mangle the language of real science, and effectively derail any public policy or action to halt the spiraling climate crisis."
Those of us whose families in coal country have paid the ultimate price for such denials, in the form of black lung disease that still rages, cancer-linked strip-mining operations that still rage, and contaminated toxic water, understand the difference between denial--and a full blown cover-up.
With the fallout of record warming temperatures, a growing climate migration crisis and vanishing arctic sea ice, that cover-up is not just a question of semantics.
It's a question of the EPA's fundamental mission--and our planet's future.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Today's remarks by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt that human activity is not "a primary contributor to the global warming that we see" should effectively bring an end to the term formerly known as "climate denial."
Dear media: Call it what it is--a climate cover-up.
As our nation's top official sworn into office to ensure, "national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information," Pruitt's statement on CNBC's "Squawk Box" raises some troubling questions on his ability to carry out his agency's mandate--or even provide a forthright characterization of his agency's scientific work.
"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," Pruitt said on CNBC, "so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact of human activity on the climate?
Not so, according to Pruitt's own EPA and its website on climate change: Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.
Not so, according to the NASA Global Climate Change website, which reminds us that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Among the hundreds of scientific organizations that "hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action," NASA features the statements of every major scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, The Geological Society of America, American Physical Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded: "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
Not so, according to Exxon's own research team in 1977, as Inside Climate News reported in its expose in 2015: "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
Therefore, let's finally put to rest the prevarication of "climate denial" terminology.
Like Pruitt's own entanglement with oil and gas producers, the bizarre anatomy of denial has a long paper trail of "bankrolled public relations firms and their bogus fronts and campaigns have deliberately sought to manipulate the media, mangle the language of real science, and effectively derail any public policy or action to halt the spiraling climate crisis."
Those of us whose families in coal country have paid the ultimate price for such denials, in the form of black lung disease that still rages, cancer-linked strip-mining operations that still rage, and contaminated toxic water, understand the difference between denial--and a full blown cover-up.
With the fallout of record warming temperatures, a growing climate migration crisis and vanishing arctic sea ice, that cover-up is not just a question of semantics.
It's a question of the EPA's fundamental mission--and our planet's future.
Today's remarks by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt that human activity is not "a primary contributor to the global warming that we see" should effectively bring an end to the term formerly known as "climate denial."
Dear media: Call it what it is--a climate cover-up.
As our nation's top official sworn into office to ensure, "national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information," Pruitt's statement on CNBC's "Squawk Box" raises some troubling questions on his ability to carry out his agency's mandate--or even provide a forthright characterization of his agency's scientific work.
"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," Pruitt said on CNBC, "so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."
Tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact of human activity on the climate?
Not so, according to Pruitt's own EPA and its website on climate change: Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.
Not so, according to the NASA Global Climate Change website, which reminds us that "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Among the hundreds of scientific organizations that "hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action," NASA features the statements of every major scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorological Society, The Geological Society of America, American Physical Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded: "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
Not so, according to Exxon's own research team in 1977, as Inside Climate News reported in its expose in 2015: "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
Therefore, let's finally put to rest the prevarication of "climate denial" terminology.
Like Pruitt's own entanglement with oil and gas producers, the bizarre anatomy of denial has a long paper trail of "bankrolled public relations firms and their bogus fronts and campaigns have deliberately sought to manipulate the media, mangle the language of real science, and effectively derail any public policy or action to halt the spiraling climate crisis."
Those of us whose families in coal country have paid the ultimate price for such denials, in the form of black lung disease that still rages, cancer-linked strip-mining operations that still rage, and contaminated toxic water, understand the difference between denial--and a full blown cover-up.
With the fallout of record warming temperatures, a growing climate migration crisis and vanishing arctic sea ice, that cover-up is not just a question of semantics.
It's a question of the EPA's fundamental mission--and our planet's future.