Tucker Carlson Gets Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Let’s go back to Fox News host Tucker Carlson and climate change, a topic that I blogged about several days ago. Scientists almost unanimously agree that the atmosphere is warming because fossil fuels are pumping carbon dioxide into the air. This distresses conservatives because (1) the fossil fuel industry wields political influence and (2) people don’t want to bend themselves out of shape to change their energy sources. When reality conflicts with politics, conservatives need to put themselves on a reduced-fact rhetoric diet. The trick behind Carlson’s argument was the non sequitur fallacy: he cited evidence that did not support his conclusion. During his anti-climate change television monologue last week, Carlson created a smokescreen. The quotations that Carlson presented didn't say what Carlson pretended that they said.

Carlson’s tactic was to misrepresent Democrats’ ideas to arouse fear, astonishment, and disgust in his listeners. He performed a magic trick: he gave the impression that he was proving his points when he was not. He gave links to prove his point. But when you look at the links, they don’t say what Carlson claimed. Tricky. Crooked. Despicable. And stunningly persuasive. Let's look at how he misrepresented Kamala Harris's point about climate change and red meat.

During his September 6 show, Carlson said this during his monologue:

“Cory Booker, for example, tried to reassure viewers that Democrats don't really want to take people's meat away. Apparently, he had forgotten that Kamala Harris had just called for that.”

The links are Carlson’s. Carlson then cited verbatim Harris’ recorded comments:

“Erin Burnett, CNN host: But would you support changing the dietary guidelines?
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., 2020 presidential candidate: Yes.
Burnett: You know, the food pyramid.
Harris: Yes.
Burnett: To reduce red meat specifically?
Harris: Yes, I would.”

Carlson drew this conclusion: “So Kamala Harris had been thinking a lot about what you eat, and she thinks you eat too much red meat, and she plans to do something about it once she is elected God. That and a number of other things.”

Let’s unpack Carlson’s tricks here. 

First, Carlson’s claim was that Democrats “really want to take your meat away.” That implied government action to deprive people of their red meat. That sounds like tyranny to any good, red-blooded conservative. And here I am writing this blog post in the Texas coastal bend, world headquarters for beef cattle.

USDA's Obsolete Food Pyramid

Second, Carlson’s proof that Harris wants to take our meat away was to point out that she supports the Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid, which, before 2011, taught every grade-school child in the country. The pyramid called for eating less red meat, which, I suspect, is the same thing that your physician has been telling you. Today, the food pyramid has been replaced by MyPlate, which offers more realistic dietary guidelines. Apparently no one, not Carlson, nor Harris, nor Burnett, knew that the food pyramid was obsolete.

So, the evidence that Carlson cited did not show that Harris wants to be elected God and take away our red meat. It showed that she supported the Department of Agriculture’s long-standing guidelines about good nutrition. If Carlson had said, honestly, that “Harris agrees with the Department of Agriculture that we should eat less red meat,” he could not set off the paranoid reactions that he was looking for.

Third, Carlson was drawing a long-standing conservative focus on climate change as a threat to our diet. Some climate change authorities think that excessive consumption of red meat indirectly leads to global warming. A column by the World Resources Institute cited evidence that “Beef also has a disproportionate impact on climate change.” But Fox commentator Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, although admitting that a vegetarian diet was wonderful, once said that a Democratic candidate was “demonizing cows. There’s a war on beef. I think we need to stand up for meat freedom.” It is one thing for Harris to say that Americans should eat less red meat, and something much different for Carlson to say that Harris wanted to become God and take away our meat freedom.

Fourth, and quite curious, Carlson quoted Harris accurately. Anyone who paid the slightest bit of attention could notice that her quotation did not support his conclusion. He had said that Harris called for He said that Harris "had just called for" taking "people's meat away." She hadn't. Apparently Carlson was confident that his listeners wouldn't notice. He pulled his trick right in front of them.

A recent opinion poll shows that only 12% of Republicans who watch Fox News believe that human activity is causing climate change. There are reasons that 88% of Republican Fox News viewers reject reality. Propaganda techniques like those of Tucker Carlson play their disgraceful part as they take Fox viewers away from truth.

People are more likely to believe something if evidence seems to support it. It is, however, vital to make sure that the evidence has something to do with the conclusion being drawn from it. The listener needs to pay attention. What Carlson did was not just hyperbole; it was grossly fallacious argument. He didn’t present logic. He just threw out a smokescreen.

P. S.: I did promise to write about how to refute this kind of argument. I haven’t forgotten, so stay tuned!

P.P.S.: Why did none of these people know that the Food Pyramid is obsolete? It’s because they didn’t do the research. They suffered from talking points disease, which I’ve written about several times.

Image from U.S. Department of Agriculture