Reading from her script Sarah intoned:
“We have to look at the fact that this report is based on the most extreme modeling scenario, which contradicts long established trends. Modeling the climate is an extremely complicated science that is never exact. The biggest thing we can do is focus on how to make sure we have the cleanest air or the cleanest water. And the President certainly is blah blah blah...”
Then responding to a follow up question with the same talking points Sarah added:
“It’s not based on facts. It’s not… It’s not data driven. We’d like to see something more data driven”
The The Fourth National Climate Assessment is an exhaustive a 1656-page overview, with extensive documentation, and it includes input from over 300 experts spanning 13 government agencies. The Fourth National Climate Assessment is a factual tour de force.
Paul Krugman had something to say about the dishonesty so endenic to Republicans and their professional liars like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.
Risking civilization for profit, ideology and ego.
By Paul Krugman
In practice, you can’t be a modern Republican in good standing unless you deny the reality of global warming, assert that it has natural causes or insist that nothing can be done about it without destroying the economy. You also have to either accept or acquiesce in wild claims that the overwhelming evidence for climate change is a hoax, that it has been fabricated by a vast global conspiracy of scientists.
Why would anyone go along with such things? Money is still the main answer: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. However, ideology is also a factor: If you take environmental issues seriously, you are led to the need for government regulation of some kind, so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine).
Finally, I have the impression that there’s an element of tough-guy posturing involved — real men don’t use renewable energy, or something.
And these motives matter. If important players opposed climate action out of good-faith disagreement with the science, that would be a shame but not a sin, calling for better efforts at persuasion. As it is, however, climate denial is rooted in greed, opportunism, and ego. And opposing action for those reasons is a sin.
Indeed, it’s depravity, on a scale that makes cancer denial seem trivial. Smoking kills people, and tobacco companies that tried to confuse the public about that reality were being evil. But climate change isn’t just killing people; it may well kill civilization. Trying to confuse the public about that is evil on a whole different level. Don’t some of these people have children?
And let’s be clear: While Donald Trump is a prime example of the depravity of climate denial, this is an issue on which his whole party went over to the dark side years ago.