A version of this essay is in the September 27, 2022 print edition of the Wall Street Journal and online here (or PDF).
World Bank president David Malpass committed what seems these days to be just about the worst crime possible against the planet. He uttered the phrase, “I am not a scientist.”
This eco-felony occurred last week at the at an event sponsored by the New York Times to coincide with the start of the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations.
The saga began when former Vice President and climate activist Al Gore called Mr. Malpass a “climate denier” and urged President Biden to remove him from his post before his term ends in 2024.
Baited by Mr. Gore, Mr. Malpass later responded to a reporter’s prodding that Mr. Gore’s comment was “very odd.” He declined to talk about his climate views and then concluded with his transgression against the planet, “I am not a scientist.”
This seeming non-event developed into front-page news at the New York Times. Calls for Mr. Malpass’ resignation began, including from the White House, despite Mr. Malpass subsequently acknowledging that he does believe greenhouse gases cause warming. Mr. Malpass has so far resisted resigning.
And why should he resign? He spoke the truth. Mr. Malpass is not a scientist. He is in fact an economist, hence his appointment to the World Bank by President Trump. His follow-up acknowledgement is also true, and is probably the one thing all sides agree to in the debate over climate. The rest is guesswork, if not fearmongering.
By the way, neither Al Gore, nor anyone who works at the New York Times, nor the vast majority of people who vault themselves into the forefront of the climate fray are actual climate scientists.
Regardless of Mr. Malpass’ personal beliefs about climate, the World Bank under his leadership has provided a record $31.7 billion to poor nations for “climate-related” initiatives. That’s pretty impressive performance from an alleged “climate denier,” whatever that term is supposed to mean.
Taking a step back, where was the outrage from the New York Times and White House when then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson declined to define the word “woman,” pleading “I am not a biologist.” Her weird eye-opening response was, most assuredly, not a front- or any-page New York Times story.
The issue of larger import here is that Republican candidates, heading into the election, can expect to be peppered with questions about whether they believe in manmade global warming and climate change. How should they respond?
True as it may be, “I am not a scientist” and similar disavowals of expertise, knowledge and opinion are not good answers for the simple reason that they aren’t effective in defusing the “gotcha” question or avoiding the consequences. And they instantly make one sound ashamed of their views.
The reality is that such questions are not put to Republicans to elicit their considered views based on their qualifications and expertise. They are about manufacturing an excuse to publicly attack and humiliate political opponents for not falling in line with the mob’s climate narrative.
So what’s the right response to this line of questioning? Obviously, something that befuddles the attacker or changes the subject. The options are endless.
First, one could take the time to learn something about the topic. It’s not rocket science, after all. Sen. Jim Inhofe, for example, has done just that and he has never been victimized or humiliated by the media.
One could try preparing tension-breaking quips. Imagine what Ronald Reagan would have done with the idea of the ever-bumbling Joe Biden trying to control the weather by sending vast amounts of taxpayer money to our geopolitical rival, Communist China? For the bolder politician, one could also go ballistic with a Trumpian response. Rest assured the New York Times hates having to write that someone said: “Climate is a hoax.”
So be prepared to not be a victim.
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute.