I posted at some length last week on why I don’t respond to complaints from climate deniers, but what I’d say if I did. Well, yesterday, a federal appeals court summed up my basic argument in two simple, direct sentences in upholding the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas pollution:
“This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”
Clearly, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
As for government agencies, so, too, for journalists — the basic understanding of climate change and the impact of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is settled science. It doesn’t need to be re-explained, re-debated or questioned every time it comes up in our reporting.
Simple as that.
The World is an independent newsroom. We’re not funded by billionaires; instead, we rely on readers and listeners like you. As a listener, you’re a crucial part of our team and our global community. Your support is vital to running our nonprofit newsroom, and we can’t do this work without you. Will you support The World with a gift today? Donations made between now and Dec. 31 will be matched 1:1. Thanks for investing in our work!