If you’re either the parent of a toddler or Extremely Online, odds are you’ve come across the “Johny Johny Yes Papa” insane meme that took over the internet last week. Vox has an explainer for the uninitiated, but to quickly summarize, it’s a short, nightmarishly-animated nursery-rhyme-like clip meant for preschoolers with a very simple story. Little Johny [sic] eats sugar straight from the jar. Papa asks him if he’s eating sugar. Johny says “No Papa.” Papa asks Johny Johny to open his mouth, and Johny does, laughing while revealing his deception.
While the various commentary, spin-offs, memes, deep dives into what horrors children’s YouTube has wrought, mash-ups and “Are you Johny Johny or Papa?” quizzes will be parsed by Internet historians for years to come, Johny Johny’s wanton disregard for truth and blase attitude about being caught in a lie couldn’t be a more apt representation of public discourse in the post-truth era.
One person who exemplifies this brazen, post-truth era (besides the obvious) is our old friend Scott Pruitt. When Pruitt told CNBC that CO2 isn’t a primary driver of climate change, this was as blatant a lie as Little Johny has ever told. This ran afoul of the EPA’s scientific integrity policy, which is designed to, as the name suggests, ensure the agency is relying on science and evidence to make decisions, as opposed to the whims of political wills. It’s also meant to prevent the politicization, censorship or altering of science at the agency.
In the ensuing lawsuit, a judge ordered the EPA to present the scientific evidence that informed Pruitt’s statement. As we expected, the EPA eventually admitted that there was no evidence for Pruitt’s claims.
Did Pruitt face any consequences? (Or, would he face any had he not already resigned?) Unfortunately not. The EPA’s Scientific Integrity Panel decided last year that Pruitt was merely voicing an opinion and not making any sort of official scientific statement of fact.
So Scott Johny Johny Pruitt, with the empty calories of denial’s sugar still on his tongue, got to laugh it off when called out for making a statement based on zero evidence.
Fortunately, it seems like perhaps the EPA’s Inspector General recognizes that a science integrity policy that doesn’t actually require the EPA head to have any scientific integrity could use some improvement.
The EPA OIG announced last week that it would be undergoing a review of the policy. The review project will catalogue employee concerns with the policy, make sure employees know how to report violations, seek to understand why violations may not always get reported, and gauge staff feelings about the adjudication process around how issues are resolved.
Ideally, the result will be changes to the policy to prevent other Johny Johnys at the EPA (looking at you, Wheeler) from simply laughing off obvious lies.
[Editor's note: Tomorrow’s DR will return to less bizarre topics, but for now our brains are melted from the heat of summer and constant onslaught of bizarre news and formerly unimaginable parade of horrors unfolding before us. Happy September!]
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: