Scott Pruitt wants to replace science with a 3-ring circus
Scott Pruitt, new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wants a “red team/blue team debate” about global warming. That’s where two sides argue different opinions on some topic, and at its best it brings greater clarity about the issue. In this case, red is “The consensus of climate scientists is wrong,” blue is “The consensus is right.”
We’ve already had this debate, for over 100 years, right where it should take place: the scientific literature and scientific conferences. The red team lost. Big time. But they are sore losers, whiny little crybabies.
The whiny crybaby losers have a champion: Scott Pruitt. He doesn’t just want a “red team/blue team” debate, he wants one broadcast on TV. That kind of “debate” is bad for truth, good for lawyer-type rhetoric. It won’t matter who’s right or wrong, just who can be more charismatic and/or persuasive to the general public.
This charade will be nothing but a 3-ring circus. The only thing it will accomplish is to provide lots of 10-second soundbites to be endlessly repeated on Faux news.
How about a red team/blue team debate — on TV — to decide whether or not cigarettes cause cancer?
If Scott Pruitt and the rest of the Trump administration were in the pockets of big tobacco, that’s what we’d get. But they’re in the pockets of fossil fuel money — so this is what we get.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at Peaseblossom’s Closet.