Finally. Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator and long-time climate change skeptic, has admitted that we humans might have something to do with the changes we are seeing in the Earth's climate.
Appearing on Tuesday's episode of Fox and Friends, Pruitt told viewers: "With this climate change, we know certain things. We know the climate’s always changing."
"We know that humans contribute to it in some way," he added.
Pruitt, appointed by Trump last December, is a well-known climate change denier. Under his leadership, the EPA has removed climate change data from its website, deleted the word "science" from its mission statement, and dismissed several scientists from its scientific advisory board.
Pruitt himself has said science shouldn't "dictate policy", calling journalists "opportunistic" and "misplaced" for drawing connections between this summer's hurricanes and rising sea temperatures.
At least his acknowledgment that human activity is somewhat influencing our environment is a step in the right direction – even if it's a very tiny baby step.
"[W]hat we don’t know is, are we in a position where it is an existential threat. Is it unsustainable with respect to what we see presently?" he continued.
"Let’s have a debate about that. Bring scientists in. Red team scientists. Blue team scientists. Have a discussion about the importance of this issue. "
It's not the first time Pruitt has suggested a "red team-blue team" debate. In June, he proposed a "back-and-forth critique" of climate change studies, which is rather problematic. Scientific debate is usually a good thing but when it comes to climate change, we are far beyond this point.
Climate change is the consensus. A whopping 97 percent of papers on the subject agree it's happening. Those remaining 3 percent? A recent review found they were all flawed. Not one could be replicated.
As Pruitt said, "The American people deserve that type of objective transparent discussion.”
A sentiment we couldn't agree with more. Still, this is an administration that gets by on "alternative facts" and discrediting experts. Putting deniers on equal footing with respected scientists probably isn't the best way to ensure an "objective transparent discussion".