Environment & Science

Issues ››› Environment & Science
  • Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Cut Support For The Network Leading The Way In Climate Reporting

    Blog ››› ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

    In 2016, PBS NewsHour once again surpassed its nightly news competitors in climate coverage, devoted significant airtime to a range of climate-related issues, and hosted a number of scientists. But President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would take aim at the network that has long been the nightly news leader in terms of climate coverage by cutting vital government support for PBS.

    Trump’s budget blueprint released last week included a proposal to completely defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), an independent agency that partially funds PBS and NPR. CPB CEO Patricia Harrison said the proposed cuts could start "the collapse of the public media system itself and the end of this essential national service.” 

    In addition to funding a portion of PBS’ revenue source directly, about half of CPB’s $445 million budget goes to PBS member stations that broadcast PBS NewsHour -- with stations in rural areas being especially reliant on CPB funding. In a statement to Media Matters, CPB stated, “The loss of this seed money would have a devastating effect [on stations in rural America]. These stations would have to raise approximately 200 percent more in private donations to replace the federal investment.” And Variety reported, “WCTE-TV in Cookeville, Tennessee, is a prime example. ... Station manager Becky Magura told [PBS president Paula] Kerger that the station would shut down if it loses CPB funding, which amounts to about half of its operating budget. WCTE is the only TV station that directly serves the town and surrounding areas in Putnam County, population 73,245 as of 2013.”

    This loss for viewers would be a shame because, as Media Matters has documented over the years, PBS NewsHour has consistently stood apart from its nightly news counterparts in the scale and scope of its climate coverage, dating back to at least 2012, when Media Matters first identified this trend. Once again, Media Mattersannual report on broadcast networks’ climate coverage found that in 2016, PBS NewsHour far surpassed its competitors, airing more climate-related segments (46) than ABC, CBS, and NBC did combined (36) in the same year.

    PBS NewsHour also stands apart from the major networks for the content of its coverage. In 2016, it was the only show to air a segment that discussed the ramifications of a Trump or Hillary Clinton presidency on climate change before the election. The other nightly news shows, however, failed to provide any issues coverage of climate change during the campaign. PBS NewsHour also led the networks in coverage of the impacts of climate change -- on extreme weather, plants and wildlife, and the economy -- and important climate-related policies and issues, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement and UN climate summits. 

    And at a time when researchers studying climate change are under immense pressure from Trump’s anti-science administration, PBS NewsHour also interviewed the largest number of scientists among the nightly news shows and featured the most segments about climate-related scientific research.

    To cite just a few examples, PBS NewsHour invited scientists to discuss the news that 2015 was the hottest year on record and the consequences of continued global warming; the significance of the Paris climate accord; and climate change’s role in the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana last year.

    With the nightly newscasts having significantly decreased their climate coverage in 2016, It's alarming to see the network that provides such essential coverage being threatened with funding cuts. Thankfully, there are promising signs of improvement on the broadcast evening news programs. In early 2017, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News are both on their way to far surpass their climate coverage of 2016; in February, CBS Evening News even featured a week of climate segments from Antarctica for its “Climate Diaries” series. 

    In the meantime, PBS NewsHour still remains the gold standard when it comes to climate change coverage on the nightly news shows. 

    Sign Media Matters’ petition urging Congress to oppose cuts to PBS and other sources of public broadcasting.

  • How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016

    ››› ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

    In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

  • Why News Outlets Only Sometimes Push Back Against Climate Denial

    The Atlantic: Backlash Against Scott Pruitt’s “Extremely Wrong” Climate Denial Highlights Media’s Failure To Call Out Trump Nominees’ “Milder” Form Of Denial

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer wrote that the backlash against Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s “extremely wrong” statement that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to climate change stands in stark contrast to the tepid criticism Pruitt and other Trump cabinet members received for their “milder” form of climate denial during nomination hearings.

    On the March 9 edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box, Pruitt roundly denied the scientific consensus on climate change by claiming that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor. In his March 15 article, Meyer questioned (and addressed) why some media outlets “rushed to correct this untruth” when they paid less attention to past similar comments. He noted that Pruitt, as well as then-Trump nominees Rex Tillerson and Ryan Zinke, had made previous statements at odds with the scientific consensus that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change by employing what multiple outlets identified as Republicans’ new tactic on climate denial.

    Meyers described this “milder” form of denial as consisting of two parts: “A nominee first recognized the reality of ‘some’ global warming—sounding appropriately grave and concerned about it—before they pivoted to casting doubt on whether humans were behind this warming, or even whether a human influence could ever be known at all.”

    Yet Meyer noted that “even as scientists and some journalists shook their heads, Trump nominees’ statements were amended, and not outright rejected, in the broader public conversation,” adding, “My own work testifies to that: My headline about Tillerson’s hearing announced that he believes in climate change, even as I corrected what was incorrect about his scientific summary.” Indeed, The Atlantic was not the only mainstream outlet to describe Pruitt, Tillerson, and Zinke as believing in climate change in its headline, as articles in USA Today, Time, and Politico did the same. And even though these outlets noted in the articles that the Trump nominees’ statements were at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, this sort of coverage is still problematic because studies show that most Americans don’t read beyond the headlines of news articles, most people who share articles on social media haven’t actually read them, and misleading headlines misinform people even when the body of the article gets the facts right.

    Meyer concluded that part of the difficulty in adequately calling out this new form of denial is due to journalists having to regularly correct “obviously wrong Republican claims” on climate change:

    Journalists covering climate change are constantly correcting obviously wrong Republican claims. This makes it harder for many to fact check the other, more waffley quotes that waft by. Many are loosely phrased and reasonable-sounding, but they contain little truth content. An example is Pruitt’s line from his confirmation hearing: “The human ability to measure with precision the extent of [the human] impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.”

    There is some kind of invisible consensus around questions of climate change. Say an obvious untruth and be mocked the world over. Say a non-commital (sic) vapidity—which has the same import as an outright lie—and you don’t wind up on Colbert. I suspect that an effect like this exists across politics, but it is surprising to see it so clearly on this one issue, where scientific agreement on reality is so strong.

    From The Atlantic:

    In January of this year, a ritual took shape on Capitol Hill, as one Trump nominee after another sat down a Senate committee for their confirmation hearing. The nominee shuffled his papers, greeted the lawmakers, and delivered conciliatory pablum about climate change.

    As many soon noticed, these statements were often… surprisingly similar. They seemed to attest more to careful pre-briefing than to some new cross-party consensus. With tremendous reliability, every answer about the issue consisted of two parts. A nominee first recognized the reality of “some” global warming—sounding appropriately grave and concerned about it—before they pivoted to casting doubt on whether humans were behind this warming, or even whether a human influence could ever be known at all.

    “Science tells us that the climate is changing and human activity in some manner impacts that change,” said Scott Pruitt, the future administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (That’s part one.) “The human ability to measure with precision the extent of that impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.” (Part two.)

    “The risk of climate change does exist. The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect,” said Rex Tillerson, future secretary of state. (Part one.) “Our ability to predict that effect is very limited.” (Part two.)

    “I do not believe it is a hoax,” said Ryan Zinke, the future secretary of the interior. (Part one.) “I think where there’s debate on it is what [the human] influence is, what can we do about it.”(Part—well, you know.)

    These answers weren’t necessarily true, but they were milder and more reasonable than outright denial. They prompted coverage in The New York Times and The Washington Post, which noted the new position was “more nuanced” and “less urgent” while also noting that it wasn’t, well, correct. As Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, told the Post: “It sounds like an orchestrated campaign of head-in-the-sand. The scientific consensus is clear: Most of the warming since 1950 is the result of the buildup of the human-made greenhouse gases.”

    But even as scientists and some journalists shook their heads, Trump nominees’ statements were amended, and not outright rejected, in the broader public conversation. My own work testifies to that: My headline about Tillerson’s hearing announced that he believes in climate change, even as I corrected what was incorrect about his scientific summary. I also wondered if his kinder, softer line pointed to a “potential shift in the Republican Party’s treatment” of the issue. 

    Compare that to what happened last week. On Friday, Scott Pruitt told a CNBC host that he didn’t believe carbon dioxide to be a primary contributor to modern-day climate change. He also said he hoped for more study and debate of the issue.

    This is extremely wrong. Decades of research have established that carbon dioxide, emitted by human industrial activities, traps heat in the atmosphere and boosts global temperatures. It is a scientific fact, as surely as the simple pull of gravity or the miracle of photosynthesis is a scientific fact. But if you go back and read Pruitt’s comments from January above, he doesn’t contradict himself.

    And yet this time, the public leaped in to correct him. My inbox soon filled up with comments from pastors, politicians, well-known scientists, and former military leaders. So many people called Pruitt’s main telephone number to complain that the EPA had to set up an impromptu call center. And Keith Seitter, the executive director of the American Meteorological Society, wrote a public letter to Pruitt.

    [...]

    Journalists covering climate change are constantly correcting obviously wrong Republican claims. This makes it harder for many to fact check the other, more waffley quotes that waft by. Many are loosely phrased and reasonable-sounding, but they contain little truth content. An example is Pruitt’s line from his confirmation hearing: “The human ability to measure with precision the extent of [the human] impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.”

    There is some kind of invisible consensus around questions of climate change. Say an obvious untruth and be mocked the world over. Say a non-commital vapidity—which has the same import as an outright lie—and you don’t wind up on Colbert. I suspect that an effect like this exists across politics, but it is surprising to see it so clearly on this one issue, where scientific agreement on reality is so strong.

  • Al Roker Debunks EPA Head Scott Pruitt’s Stunning Denial On Human-Caused Climate Change

    Roker: “No Credible Science Or Scientist” Would Support Pruitt’s Assertion CO2 Is Not A Primary Contributor To Global Warming

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    NBC weatherman Al Roker debunked EPA head Scott Pruitt’s false claim that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming during an appearance on MSNBC Live, explaining that there is “no credible science or scientist” to support Pruitt’s statement.

    During the March 10 segment, Roker addressed Pruitt’s comments on the March 9 edition CNBC’s Squawk Box in which Pruitt said “I would not agree” that CO2 is “a primary contributor to the global warming that we see” -- a statement completely at odds with the consensus among climate scientists that human activity is the primary cause of climate change.

    To rebut Pruitt’s statements, Roker referenced an interview he recently conducted with climate scientist Dr. Marshall Shepherd, who explained that “greenhouse gases are in fact the primary forcing function on a warming climate system. … their fingerprint is there on our naturally varying climate in the same way steroids were on the naturally varying cycle of home runs during the Major League Baseball era.”

    Roker also stated “there is no credible science or scientist” that would back up Pruitt’s assertion. Indeed, a number of climate scientists have weighed in on Pruitt’s statement, stating Pruitt’s denial “demonstrated that he is unqualified to run the EPA or any agency” and suggesting that Pruitt “talk with his own scientists and read the National Climate Assessment.”

    Notably, however, NBC did not address Pruitt’s climate denial on the widely viewed Today show the same day, nor NBC Nightly News air a segment on Pruitt’s climate denial on March 9 -- even though Pruitt’s denial received widespread attention across mainstream media.

    From the March 10 edition of MSNBC Live:

    KATY TUR (HOST): The head of the Environment Protection Agency stunned many when he denied carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.

    [...]

    TUR: Today show host and weatherman, a man who needs no introduction, Al Roker joins me now. “Stunned many” is a bit of an understatement, said most almost all, gosh, CO2 is not a factor when it comes to climate change. Was all of the schooling that I had as a child and into my adult life completely wrong, Al Roker?

    AL ROKER: No, it wasn't wrong and there is no credible science or scientist who will tell you the contrary. The fact is, carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gases is responsible for climate change.

    TUR: No scientist will say this, but we’re having the EPA head say this?

    ROKER: Well, look, this is America and you can make whatever statements you want to, but everybody will pretty much agree -- in fact, just about an hour ago I interviewed one of the leading climate scientists in this country, Dr. Marshall Shepherd, and here's what he had to say about it.

    [BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

    MARSHALL SHEPHERD (DIRECTOR FOR UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA’S PROGRAM IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES): The basic physics of the atmosphere suggest that greenhouse gases are in fact the primary forcing function on a warming climate system. Greenhouse gases and the impacts post-industrial age or -- industrial revolution are certainly -- their fingerprint is there on our naturally varying climate in the same way steroids were on the naturally varying cycle of home runs during the Major League Bbaseball era.

    [END VIDEO CLIP]

    ROKER: I think that pretty much sums it it up.

    TUR: Yeah, so where -- if the EPA head is saying there needs to be more research, but the EPA is losing money to do research, give me the consequences. How important is it and how significant is it to have the EPA head deny something like this?

    ROKER: Well I think hopefully cooler heads will prevail upon him to say we need to continue to research this. We need to continue what we've been doing because if you look, we've got a graphic that basically right around the industrial revolution, we had -- there's been no time in this history of our planet where CO2, even naturally occurring or not, was above 290 parts per million. Alright, now you look at the temperature, we put the temperature on top of that, you can see from the 1880s into the 1940s, temperatures are below average, below the global average, but once we really start to see that red line go up, as the CO2 starts to increase, you can see those average global temperatures continue to rise, and they peaked last year, the warmest temperature ever on record for this planet. So as we continue to add those greenhouse gases -- now, that's not to say that -- the greenhouse gases allow us to live on this planet. Without them completely, we would freeze to death. At night we would die. So there has to be some small amount of greenhouse gases. We're just adding too much.

  • Daily Caller Editor Suggests She Wants To “Run Over” Native Nations Protesters

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Daily Caller News Foundation editor and producer Katie Frates tweeted -- then deleted -- that she wanted to “run over” Native Nations Rise activists protesting President Donald Trump’s support of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

    Members of indigenous tribes are protesting today in Washington, D.C., against the pipeline in the Native Nations March on Washington. Frates responded to the march by speculating about how many protesters she could run over before she “got arrested”:

    Frates later deleted the tweet, but only after repeatedly defending it on Twitter, claiming that she gets “equally annoyed at anyone who cause unnecessary traffic.” Daily Beast senior editor Andrew Kirell, who noted the tweet and its deletion, wrote to Frates: “Curious why you deleted it, @TheWorldsFrates, because your replies seem to indicate no remorse or reconsideration.”

  • A Short Guide To Mark Levin, Trump’s Likely Source For His Wiretapping Lie

    ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    On March 4, President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of ordering his phones in Trump Tower to be wiretapped during the 2016 election. Trump’s claim echoed points made by Mark Levin, a right-wing talk radio host with a history of anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ statements, climate denial, and racism. He also attacked Obama throughout his presidency, comparing him to dictators, accusing him of racism and anti-Semitism, and saying he had “planted the seeds of World War III.”

  • CNN's New "Senior Economics Analyst" Embarrassed His Network By Spewing Lies About The Economy

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    Discredited economic pundit and former Trump campaign adviser Stephen Moore -- who currently serves as the “chief economist” at the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation -- bombarded CNN viewers with debunked right-wing media talking points about the American economy last night. Moore’s prominent role as CNN’s new “senior economics analyst” hinders the network’s credibility, undermining its ability to cover the economy in an honest and accountable way.

    During a February 28 panel discussion analyzing President Donald Trump’s speech before a joint session of Congress, Moore sparred with fellow panelists in an attempt to defend Trump’s reckless budgetary, economic, and fiscal policies. Across a spectrum of issues relating to economic growth, job creation, taxes, and regulations, Moore pushed tired and disproven myths pulled directly from right-wing media.

    When pressed on how Trump could increase spending while cutting taxes for corporations and high income earners without ballooning the deficit, Moore regurgitated the absurd fallacy that tax cuts would pay for themselves by stoking economic growth to at least 3.5 percent annually. Economist Marc Goldwein of the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget dismissed the 3.5 percent growth target as “pie in the sky” and “pretty much impossible” during the presidential campaign. There is a mountain of evidence from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the Brookings Institution, and elsewhere demonstrating that tax cuts don’t generate new revenue through economic growth. Furthermore, economists across the political spectrum view Trump’s proposed restrictions on immigration and international trade as a detriment to economic growth regardless of tax policy shifts.

    Moore’s assertion that the economy can achieve 3.5 percent annual growth isn’t just wrong on the arithmetic, it’s also arbitrary. Former presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) were chided by economists and experts for floating similar targets, and the fixation on getting economic growth above 3 percent was a core of Fox News’ misinformation campaign against the Obama administration. (Last October, Moore told Fox Business viewers that stronger-than-expected economic growth in the prior quarter was “still pretty lousy” simply because it was measured at 2.9 percent instead of 3.)

    After falsely claiming that Trump could stoke economic growth by following a tax cut strategy supposedly modeled after former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Moore pushed the misleading notion that regulatory burdens are holding the economy back. This claim, popularized by the right-wing editorial board of The Wall Street Journal (a former employer of Moore’s), is also not backed up by the facts.

    After being rebuffed on regulations, Moore tried another right-wing media myth: that it has been “15 years since the average American worker has had a pay raise.” Fox News has spent years blaming President Barack Obama for supposedly stagnant median incomes in the United States, always neglecting to mention that the stagnation began under President George W. Bush and was driven into free fall by the recession Obama inherited. Median incomes are lower than they were 15 years ago thanks to two Bush-era recessions but had gradually improved during Obama’s final years in office -- a fact absent from right-wing coverage of the subject.

    Moore concluded his embarrassing performance by recycling false right-wing media talking points blaming environmental protections for declining employment in the coal industry. The fallacy that protecting the environment is killing jobs in the energy sector is so unsubstantiated that even conservative Forbes columnist Tim Worstall has rebuffed it. A recent study from the Brookings Institution concluded that the overwhelming reason for declining employment in the mining and manufacturing industries is automation, a trend that “has been eating coal jobs over a long period of time -- [since] years before concerns about climate change” stiffened environmental protections. Right-wing pundits, including Moore, love to exaggerate the threat of automation while opposing the minimum wage. They rarely mention that machines, not burdensome regulations, are driving well-paid blue collar mining jobs into extinction.

    Steve Moore’s short tenure at CNN thus far has been a disaster for the network, which decided to hire arguably the world’s worst economist away from Fox News on January 30. Moore’s unflinching partisan agenda colors all of his commentary and can be easily dismantled by any analyst with a basic competency in economics.

    Watch the full segment from the February 28 edition of CNN Tonight here:

  • Oklahoma City Fox Affiliate Reveals EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Lied To Senate About His Emails

    Blog ››› ››› KEVIN KALHOEFER

    An investigative report by FOX 25 in Oklahoma City revealed that EPA administrator and former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt lied to a Senate committee about his use of a private email account during his Senate confirmation hearing.

    As part of Pruitt’s January 18 confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) asked Pruitt in writing, “Have you ever conducted business using your personal email accounts, nonofficial Oklahoma Attorney General email accounts, text messages, instant messenger, voicemails, or any other medium?” Pruitt submitted a response that read, “I use only my official OAG [Office of the Attorney General] email address and government issued phone to conduct official business.” During the hearing itself, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Pruitt to explain why a nongovernment email with Pruitt’s name was listed as a business email. Pruitt replied, “There are no other email addresses, if that’s your question, Senator.”

    But on February 24, KOKH’s Fox 25 Primetime News at 9 aired an investigative report confirming that Pruitt had in fact used a private email account to conduct official state business. In the segment, investigate reporter Phil Cross reported that an email he had obtained “shows Pruitt was not only receiving copies of official emails but also conducting state business using an email address his office wants to hide,” adding that “[t]he [Oklahoma Attorney General’s] office confirms Pruitt did use a private email account for public business.”

    After airing the clip of Pruitt denying his use of a private email account during the Senate confirmation hearing, Cross explained, “Documents recently obtained by FOX 25 indicate his statement was a lie.”
     

    FOX 25’s report aired a week after Cross first revealed that documents obtained from the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office showed Pruitt “may have used a private email account to conduct state business.” Specifically, Cross noted that “on multiple documents both to and from Pruitt the email addresses for Pruitt are blacked out,” whereas “[t]his type of redaction does not occur on the email addresses from Pruitt’s official government email account.”

    The findings of FOX 25’s investigative report were subsequently corroborated by The Associated Press on February 27. The AP reported that “[a] review of Pruitt emails obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request showed a 2014 exchange where the Republican emailed a member of his staff using a personal Apple email account,” and added that “Pruitt's use of the private account appears to directly contradict statements he made last month as part of his Senate confirmation.” Both FOX 25 and the AP obtained Pruitt’s emails through public records requests.

    Pruitt is also facing scrutiny for a large batch of emails showing that he closely coordinated with fossil fuel companies to undermine federal environmental safeguards. The Center for Media and Democracy had requested those emails more than two years ago, but Pruitt’s attorney general’s office only turned them over after CMD filed a lawsuit and an Oklahoma judge ruled that Pruitt had been illegally withholding the documents. Senate Democrats had called for the Senate Republican leadership to postpone Pruitt’s EPA confirmation vote until the emails were released, but the Republicans refused to do so and he was confirmed by a 52-46 vote.

  • Michael Savage Says He Spent “Over An Hour Alone” With Trump And Urged Him To Continue Denying Human-Caused Climate Change

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC HANANOKI

    Radio host Michael Savage claims he recently sat with President Donald Trump for “over an hour” and advised the president to continue falsely claiming that climate change “has nothing to do with mankind.” According to Savage, the president credited him with helping swing the election and encouraged him to keep broadcasting for “another 25 years.” Savage has used his radio program to attack people with autism, PTSD, and depression, and has advocated for killing “100 million” Muslims.

    Savage spent his February 22 radio program recounting his February 18 visit with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. He began by stating that he “sat with the president for well over an hour, alone. ... We had dessert together.” Savage said he talked with Trump about a variety of topics, including climate science:

    MICHAEL SAVAGE: I said, "Let me tell you the story about global warming, President Trump, it’s real simple. There have been at least five ice ages on this earth that we know of in recorded history. Five ice ages came and went long before there was industrialization. It has nothing to do with mankind." Big smile. Big smile. It’s simple. It’s simple. I don’t need mathematical formulae. If you went to the fifth grade you could understand that.

    While the ice ages Savage referenced -- as well as historical warm periods -- did occur due to natural causes, Skeptical Science and others have debunked the ice ages argument and explained that today’s climate change can be explained only by human activity. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded that human activities are the primary cause of climate change.

    Trump has repeatedly pushed junk science when it comes to climate change, calling it “a total, and very expensive, hoax!

    Savage has no credibility to talk about science. He’s called autism "a fraud, a racket," said people with PTSD and depression are "losers," advised people not to get flu shots because you can't trust the government, and theorized that liberals have been driven insane because of seltzer bubbles.

    He has also pushed numerous conspiracy theories and has advocated killing “100 million” Muslims. The radio host once worked for MSNBC but was fired when he told a critical caller to "get AIDS and die.”

    Savage later claimed during his program that Trump told him “we need this guy for another 25 years” and “without you I wouldn’t be president.”

    He also said that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus came up to him and said, “Savage Nation, Michael Savage, love your show! … Love you, love your show!” Priebus reportedly added: “You’re not like the others. … You’re an edgy guy. … I’ve listened to you since I’m a kid.” He added that Priebus gave him his email address and cell phone number and said, “Text me anytime.”

    Savage wrote on Facebook today that he has a plan “to investigate the subversive groups destroying America” and “will ask the president to allow me to help create this investigation.”

    UPDATE: 

    Savage expanded on his evening with Trump in a March 12 interview with WND:

    As they prepared to leave, Savage, who has a science Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, told Trump he wanted to talk with him at some point in the future about “saving billions of dollars on fake science.”

    Trump asked: “What do you mean? Global warming?”

    Savage nodded.

    “Let me put it to you this way,” he recalled saying to Trump. “We’ve had five ice ages before industrialization. What do you think it was that caused the ice to melt?’

    Savage said Trump’s “face lit up in a huge smile. He got it.”