On the 2016 climate deniers

Media critic and NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen (and offhand namer of names): “Journalists have to decide what to do about candidates who are climate change denialists.” He takes note of the New York Times:

We have made a conscious decision that we are not going to take that point of view seriously. …That the Times had made an exception [to both-siderism] in the case of climate change denialism was welcome news, an important development, but as soon as I saw Adam Bryant’s statement, I thought: Let’s wait for the 2016 campaign. Then we’ll see.

As of yesterday we have the first presidential candidate, Ted Cruz. We have the official start of the 2016 campaign, and we have someone who will bullshit everybody about perhaps the greatest challenge to ever face humanity. So it’s all begun.

And he won’t be the only liar. Here are your Republican contenders:

(1) Flat-Earthers, who deny the existence of manmade climate change; (2) Born-Again Flat-Earthers, who do the same, but who had admitted climate change exists back before President Obama took office; (3) Do-Nothings, who sort of admit the reality of climate change but oppose actually taking any steps to prevent it; and (4) Dodgers, who have avoided saying whether they believe climate change is happening, and who also don’t want to take any steps to alleviate it.

Rosen comes up with a plan. Here are 4 ways a ‘journalist’ can deal with denialism:

1. Normalize it: treat denialist claims like any other campaign position…
2. Savvy analysis: is denialism a winning move or is it costing the candidate?…
3. Persistence: Call it what it is — a rejection of the science — and keep calling it that…
4. Confrontation: Try to raise the costs of denialism….

What to do? All four paths have problems. In my view 2.) is the worst option, 1.) is not much better, 3.) is probably the best choice, but that doesn’t mean it will make a difference, and 4.) is the riskiest but might be a worth a try.

Rosen’s take is well worth your time. As for Ted Cruz

…I just came back from New Hampshire where there’s snow and ice everywhere. And my view actually is simple. Debates on this should follow science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there’s been zero warming, none whatsoever.

Ann Althouse found the time to take in Cruz’s campaign kickoff speech, and she was duly impressed.

ADDED: Let the record show, that at 4:58, I cried.


3 thoughts On the 2016 climate deniers

  1. avatar bjkeefe says:

    Man, you still read Althouse? You’re made of sterner stuff than I.

  2. avatar bjkeefe says:

    BTW, that “Rosen’s take” link doesn’t lead to anything involving Rosen. (It points to the same page as your next link.)

  3. avatar toma says:

    Thanks Brendan, link fixed. And Althouse showed up on Memeorandum so I clicked over out of curiosity and was mightily impressed. That Cruz’ cartoon-mouse rhetoric could bring her to tears is a greater indictment than any I could fashion.

Comments are closed.