As one might imagine, a great many people found this comment a bit...hmm, tad over the top, and responses went flying all over the place. As one might also imagine, there would seem to be something else at play. Could it perhaps be that he didn't mean it at all, and that it was just a sarcastic joke in reverse...?
Well, it could. But it wasn't exactly, only in part. But not a very big part.
That's because later in the day, after the flames grew high, Mr. Sajak found the right vowels and posted the following --
"As most of you know, original Tweet was intended to parody the name-calling directed at climate skeptics. Hyperbole."
What we learned from all this is that parody is not Pat Sajak's forte.
What we didn't learn is whether Pat Sajak thinks all criticism of climate change skeptics is overt-the-top and unwarranted, or if he believes that a great deal of criticism towards climate skeptics is -- and what "over-the-top" and "unwarranted" criticism of climate change skeptics would entail.
We also didn't learn -- if 97% of scientists agree on climate change -- when it would be permissible in Mr. Sajak's eyes to criticize the people who support the remaining 3%.
The bottom line is that I don't know what Pat Sajak thinks about climate change. Which has never really been a big issue because I've never particularly cared what Pat Sajak thinks about climate change -- any more than he likely cares about what I think about it. It's possible that he believes the 97% of scientists and just likes to stand up for The Little Guy. While I suspect that's not the case -- it would be an odd defense to make, in support of ignoring accepted science from a pro-science position -- I'm willing to let Pat Sajak expand beyond 140 characters to express his actual point of view.
I'd just rather hear Neil Degrasse Tyson's position. He actually seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to science. And communication. But then I'd rather Neil Degrasse Tyson was the host of Wheel of Fortune, too...