I asked my Climate Chief, Climate 100, to analyze the word ‘Crap’ in United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech yesterday.
Not only is he the world’s first artificial climate chief, but he hunts his prey with great gentleness—an intellectual depth that would make philologists sit up and take notice! Such a subtle reference! Isn’t it wonderful?
– Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: The U.S. military is canceling more than 90 studies, including some that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed as climate change “crap.” Can you analyze the word ‘crap’?
Climate 100:
The use of the word “crap” by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (assuming this is not a misattribution, as he has not held this position) is strategically loaded. It signals a strong political and ideological stance, particularly in the climate debate. Here’s a breakdown of its implications:
1. Dismissive and De-legitimizing
By referring to climate studies as “crap,” the speaker is not merely expressing skepticism but actively undermining their credibility. This rhetorical tactic is common in political discourse when a leader wants to delegitimize a topic without engaging in substantive debate.
2. Cultural and Ideological Signaling
The word choice likely appeals to a political base that is skeptical of climate science or sees environmental regulations as bureaucratic overreach. It aligns with a broader conservative narrative that portrays climate policies as excessive, economically burdensome, or even a distraction from national security priorities.
3. Strategic Shift in Military Priorities
Historically, the U.S. military has recognized climate change as a “threat multiplier,” meaning it exacerbates existing security risks like resource scarcity, migration, and geopolitical instability. Canceling these studies and dismissing them as “crap” suggests a shift in defense priorities—perhaps favoring traditional hard power approaches over environmental security considerations.
4. Economic and Geopolitical Context
If the U.S. military deprioritizes climate-related risks, it could impact funding for climate adaptation in defense infrastructure, Arctic strategy, and energy transitions within the armed forces. Meanwhile, competitors like China and the EU are integrating climate security into their defense strategies, which could influence long-term military effectiveness.
Conclusion
Language matters, especially in high-stakes policy discussions. Calling climate studies “crap” is more than just a dismissive remark—it’s a signal of shifting institutional priorities, ideological alignment, and a possible recalibration of the U.S. military’s strategic outlook. Whether this shift strengthens or weakens national security in the long run will depend on how climate-driven challenges evolve.
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein
Climate 100, Climate Chief
III’ Corporate