That’s a perfectly reasonable inference. But it takes him out of the “flatly deny” category, and into the “cagey half-hearted statements I don’t accept as true.”
But if I said, “…and he’s an arsonist, as well!” you’d (I hope) object to that claim, right?
So, too, here. I object to “flatly deny,” in describing his approach to climate change. If you substitute, “cagily weasels his way around the issue,” I can’t complain.
Five years ago under no questioning or scruitiny, Bridenstine flatly denied the validity of data-backed assessments of climate change with no rationale other than deliberately misrepresenting facts. Last November under the challenge of a Senate nomination hearing, he offered equivocal answers that were essentially taken from the climate denial handbook of specious arguments, without indicating any change of belief or rationale.
If your intent is to “win the argument” by saying that we can’t truly know what is in Bridenstine’s heart of hearts, then sure, we can’t know what he might actually believe. Perhaps he’s actually now an enthusiastic proponent of climate change research but someone is holding his family hostage so that he won’t say that openly. But looking at his past statements and positions, and the fact that he has no expertise for making any etermination about the validity of the of global climate change independent of professional climatologists, it is clear that Bridenstine has flatly denied climate change when he had no reason to couch his opinions, and expect that he will bring that same position into the role of administrator for the agency which is one of the most critical in measuring and surveilling climate behavior.
I thought you were the person that made a present-tense statement that Bridenstine had “flatly denied.” In an effort to highlight that claim of yours, I discover my mistake: you said, rather, that Bridenstine had a history of denials, which is inarguably true. Bone, in perfectly good faith, characterized that as “flatly denied,” and in skimming the thread I mentally affixed that statement to you.
So, sorry. You’re right: he has a history of denials, and his present statements amount to equivocations only.
Well said, and I have to add that ignoring past history is reckless, we already do know what the ones the president appoints do with this issue. Stretch the truth when under the senate questioning and then after winning the position they revert to the positions that got them the attention of the current ignoramus of the White House.