Title : In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science."
link : In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science."
In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science."
The words appear on the front page, "Trump Scorns Science as Fires Rage; Biden Calls Him 'Climate Arsonist'":
You can see the idea they're using: "Climate took center stage in the election as President Trump denied global warming had any role and Joe Biden said this denial had fed the destruction." The NYT is saying that the failure to concede that global warming had some role in the fires is a rejection of science. And I guess we're expected to see Joe Biden as a science devotee for saying the fires are as bad as they are because of the denial of global warming, though "climate arsonist" isn't scientific terminology.
Clicking through to the article, I see the headline is "As Trump Again Rejects Science, Biden Calls Him a ‘Climate Arsonist’/The president visited California after weeks of silence on its wildfires and blamed the crisis only on poor forest management, not climate change. 'I don’t think science knows' what is happening, he said."
If he said "I don’t think science knows," is it fair to say he "scorns science"? I'd say it sounds as though he's interested in the process of science. Yes, he's stressing forest management, but is the NYT denying that forest management has had any role in the destructiveness of the fires? If I talked like the NYT, I'd say the NYT is scorning science for denying the role of forest management. See how that works?
Now, I can see the caginess of saying Trump "blamed the crisis only on poor forest management." Does that mean Trump has said that the fires have only one cause, poor forest management? No, though a quick reader might think it means that, it really only means that the only cause — among all the causative factors — that Trump is talking about is poor forest management. But if he said "I don’t think science knows" the role of climate change, then he is talking about potential other factors.
Ugh. It's so annoying to sift through this. The NYT should present the news in a coolly neutral fashion. But it is my chosen task to pull the propaganda apart, so I will continue. From the text of the article:
A day of dueling appearances laid out the stark differences between the two candidates, an incumbent president who has long scorned climate change as a hoax and rolled back environmental regulations and a challenger who has called for an aggressive campaign to curb the greenhouse gases blamed for increasingly extreme weather....I don't think Trump has called climate change a hoax! Ridiculous! The "hoax" he talks about has to do with the assertions that human beings have made about climate change. If you actually care about science, journalists, you ought to be scrupulous about your words. You ought to see imprecision like that. So sloppy. So political.
“If we have four more years of Trump’s climate denial, how many suburbs will be burned in wildfires?” Mr. Biden asked. “How many suburban neighborhoods will have been flooded out? How many suburbs will have been blown away in superstorms? If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze?”...
“When trees fall down after a short period of time, they become very dry — really like a matchstick,” Mr. Trump said. “And they can explode. Also leaves. When you have dried leaves on the ground, it’s just fuel for the fires.”...So Trump did not use that occasion to "deny climate change."
But [Gov. Gavin] Newsom noted that only 3 percent of land in California is under state control while 57 percent is federal forest land, meaning under the president’s management as governed by federal law.... “As you suggest, the working relationship I value,” Mr. Newsom said.... “And so I think there’s an area of at least commonality on vegetation, forest management. But please respect — and I know you do — the difference of opinion out here as it relates to this fundamental issue on the issue of climate change.”
Mr. Trump did not argue the point. “Absolutely,” he said...
But Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary for natural resources, pressed Mr. Trump more bluntly. “If we ignore that science and sort of put our head in the sand and think it’s all about vegetation management, we’re not going to succeed together protecting Californians,” he told the president.
This time, Mr. Trump rejected the premise. “It’ll start getting cooler,” he insisted. “You just watch.”
“I wish science agreed with you,” Mr. Crowfoot replied.
“Well, I don’t think science knows, actually,” Mr. Trump retorted, maintaining a tense grin....So when you get far enough into the article, it does reveal that scientists say that forest management is a factor. It's the factor Trump wants to stress, and he is doing something about it.
Some environmental specialists said that Mr. Trump had a point about forest management but that it should not be an excuse to deny climate science and refuse to take action.... Experts say climate change, the management of public lands and decisions over where to site housing all contribute to wildfires. Mr. Trump has exclusively blamed poor forest management and last year issued an executive order directing agencies to cut down more trees, arguing that expanding timber harvesting would reduce forest fires....
Thus articles In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science."
that is all articles In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2020/09/in-scramble-to-blame-west-coast-fires.html
0 Response to "In the scramble to blame the west-coast fires on Trump, the NYT says Trump "scorns science.""
Post a Comment