Recently, a well-educated colleague of mine expressed his frustration with the media, wishing they would stop injecting politics into the coverage of recent hurricanes. At first glance, I thought we were on the same page. In fact, I had previously written to the Tribune-Star voicing similar concerns. However, after further discussion, it became clear that we meant entirely different things. While we both disliked the politicization of hurricanes, I strongly disagreed with his perspective.
To him, the “politics” being brought into the hurricane coverage referred to the media’s discussions about climate change — science that is based on decades of rigorous research. He saw climate change as a political agenda rather than an objective reality. This is where our views diverged. The science behind climate change is not a political issue; it is grounded in evidence and affects everyone equally. It transcends party lines because it is a product of the scientific method, which has been proven reliable over time. Science is neutral, and climate change is simply a reality that must be acknowledged, not a topic for political debate.
However, I do agree that some people deliberately politicize climate change, denying its existence or downplaying its importance for the sake of political gain. This tactic undermines the integrity of science and turns a critical issue into a divisive talking point. The denial of climate change is not just a rejection of scientific consensus; it is a rejection of the very principles of the scientific method.
I agree with my colleague that politics should not interfere with our response to natural disasters, but I cannot support his dismissal of climate change as “politics.” Climate change is science, and denying its existence is simply denying reality. We must confront this issue based on evidence, not political ideologies.
— Michael Lechner,
Terre Haute
This post was originally published on here
