Rick Santorum, the twice-failed Republican presidential candidate who’s no stranger to controversy, sparked internet outrage once again on Sunday ― this time for peddling a conspiracy theory about government climate scientists.
Democratic lawmakers have condemned President Donald Trump’s administration for releasing a federal climate change report on Black Friday, arguing the timing was meant to bury its alarming findings and warnings. But Santorum praised the administration’s move.
“Good for them,” Santorum said on CNN’s “State Of The Union” program, prompting apparent disbelief from his fellow panelists and host Dana Bash.
“Alright, well, at least you guys are transparent about it ―” responded Bash, possibly referring to Republicans, climate change skeptics or both.
Santorum interrupted, “Well, this is a report generated by people who are in the bureaucracy. These are not Trump appointees.”
At least 97 percent of climate scientists agree that global warming trends in the last 100 years are “extremely likely” due to human activities, according to NASA.
But Santorum, citing zero evidence, claimed the federal government’s own scientists were “driven by money” when they warned in their report that the planet is barreling toward catastrophic ― perhaps irreversible ― climate change.
″I think the point that Donald Trump makes is true, which is ― look, if there was no climate change, we’d have a lot of scientists looking for work,” Santorum said. “The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive.”
Santorum’s comments generated a swift backlash on Twitter, reigniting calls for CNN to drop him as a paid commentator. The former senator from Pennsylvania has been the subject of scorn several times in recent years for his on-air comments, including his call for high school students to learn CPR rather than push for stricter gun laws in the wake of school shootings.
“By continuing to employ Rick Santorum, @CNN is doing real harm to their credibility,” one Twitter user wrote. ”[Santorum] says his personal conclusion [is] that climate scientists are being paid to make up their climate assessments ― without a shred of evidence.”