Climate change conflicts

For more than a century, so-called scientists have understood that CO2 traps heat. More recently, that fundamental understanding has led to conclusions from minor groups such as NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. military that CO2 is a major contributor to global climate change. To add to this, in 2016, no peer-reviewed paper was published that did not conclude climate change is primarily caused by humans. These “scientists” would have us believe there is a consensus on climate change. Yet, thankfully, we have someone fighting for common sense in the trenches of American government.

This man is highly qualified to understand the scientific process, analyze data and draw conclusions from the overall scientific community. Thanks to his law degree and distinguished career fighting for oil companies, Scott Pruitt is primed to set the record straight as the new head of the EPA.

In a heroic moment, our defender Scott clarified that “there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of CO2], so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see”. Finally, a media cycle with some good news.

Of course, the liberal media was quick to condemn Pruitt’s statements with facts from the EPA’s own website. These sources claiming the EPA itself directly contradicted his statements on their website and even some traitorous climate skeptics said he was wrong. Most laughably, some climate advocacy groups threw up their arms in disbelief and asked Pruitt what data would convince him.

The answer is, no piece of data will convince Pruitt, and we will follow our leaders. For every data point, we will have a convoluted, pseudo-scientific counterpoint. We love the blackened pipes of gas-guzzling trucks and do not care that hippy green energy is becoming cheaper. We romanticize the coal miner whose hard work on the American frontier exemplifies American morality. We believe consumption is inherently good and, by extension, reduction is immoral. After all, resources are here for our use, and if Americans could tame the West we will find a way to frack the rest.

We have the president on our side. Even if we are wrong and these scientists who have dedicated their entire lives to becoming highly-skilled specialists in an oft-misunderstood field with a time-tested method that includes a self-correcting step actually know something about the world, it does not matter. Trump claimed that protests had taken place in Norway. The next day it happened. His lie was mutated into truth.

Eventually the climate will stop changing (either due to human extinction or by the efforts of conservationists). Our lie will be transformed into truth. We will look back and say we were right all along. Trump said climate change is a hoax. Now that he is president, what he says goes. Truth is defined by what he and his cabinet decides is true.