• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chuck Todd says his show is 'not going to give time to climate deniers'

You have a point. AFAIK, no AGW advocate has been an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, as has Nir Shaviv.

save it for those who care about denialism. i don't.
 
It seems the natural way of the left.

While we are left holding the bag still debating the controversial topic, they have already been enlightened and "moved on".

Reminds me of the time our high school's TV production academy asked the two political clubs at the school to take on a series of debates to be televised in 15 minutes segments. I was the sponsor of one side and a well liked young fellow, an English teacher, was the sponsor on the other side. We agreed to a set number of topics. Abortion was excluded as being just too much, so we settled on the general topics of Global Warming [ this was pre Climate Change, pre pause etc...], Gun Control, School uniforms I think, etc.

So the TV productions students started advanced advertising this as an upcoming time-slotted event. I have my two chosen club debaters lined up, so does he, so we then put it to both our teams to develop the actual proposition to be agreed upon as well as all their potential questions. This was a courtesy by each side to give to the other side so nobody would get embarrassed, blindsided on live tv in front of the whole school.

With that, my team came up with a long list of potential, mainly science based questions and started working on their offense and defense of the probable against the proposition of man-generated warming, AGW, on the topic. So we schedule another meeting a week or so ahead of the planned event. An administrator is in with the TV prod team student producer and the two of us and our papers to be exchanged as well as working out how the moderation will be accomplished, time limits, etc.

My opposite quickly peruses the OP and the questions...shakes his head negatively then stridently states he would not let his students debate this, that the debate as to whether GW was man forced or naturally occurring had long since been decided, and we should ONLY debate on how to solve the problem. Then, to add injury to insult, he said we should avoid all use of science, that the science would simple go over the general student population's head, they additionally would be bored by the entire thing.

Have to admit I was caught completely off guard by all of this, looking back on it, impertinent assault, the total disregard for our position, basically being the requirement that we cave from the beginning, just work on the political solutions from each side's point of view. I involuntarily laughed at the thought. I told him that he was welcomed to have his side do just that, but we would still be arguing against the premise of man being overwhelmingly responsible.

He got hot mad, stormed off saying he would not subject his students to any of that, there would be no debate. After he left, I looked at the admin, herself a former English teacher that had worked alongside this guy in their department before joining the admin team. She shook her head and said she would try to talk with him privately... see if she could salvage the situation. She agreed that it was not the proper way to have the specified debate so arranged...

But he would never agree to any terms but strictly his own... and so the debate, already scheduled and coming up quick on the calendar required we scramble, try to dig up, find sufficiently qualified student replacements to take over in the opposing club's stead.

We only found the one willing, a very bright junior from our debate club who went televised one on one with our guy.

The event actually went over quite well with the teachers and student populations, but we never even talked again about having any of the other televised debates.
 
NBC's Chuck Todd at the beginning of "Meet the Press" on Sunday said that his show is "not going to give time to climate deniers" before hosting an hourlong panel with lawmakers and experts about the consequences of climate change.
"This morning, we’re going to do something that we don’t often get to do: dive in on one topic,” Todd said after showing video clips of dramatic weather incidents in the last year. He continued that climate change is “a literally earth-changing subject that doesn’t get talked about this thoroughly, at least on television news."
...
Todd on Sunday said that his show would not not "confuse weather with climate."
The climate panel included multiple scientists and experts, as well as potential presidential contender Michael Bloomberg, climate activist California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...his-show-is-not-going-to-give-time-to-climate

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen ... outside of college campuses you don't often get such in-your-face proud boasting about censorship ... complete with its own self-contradictions (bolded).

If Chuck Todd says "We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause, period."
"We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,"..."The science is settled even if political opinion is not." and Bloomberg and Jerry Brown said so ... who are we to argue.

Ironic. Chuck Todd doesn't know enough about climate science to call it settled, but political opinion is what's settled for him.

I’m sure you’re going to want to give this guy below airtime if there is a WW2 discussion too.

fa3ea9b1f87c54abe25341306ecb220f.jpg
 
At quick glance, This appears to be a panel of actual scientists who just disagree with him. Not the scenario I was putting forward.

He is appearing before the Bundestag (politicians) as are they. You asked whether he had appeared with politicians or lawyers.
 
I'm not the one avoiding the data.

Odd... because in another thread s few minutes ago, you posted a blog excerpt that basically said that if we ignore all the warming in the 21st century, there isn’t any warming.

I mean... it was literally THAT stupid.
 
Odd... because in another thread s few minutes ago, you posted a blog excerpt that basically said that if we ignore all the warming in the 21st century, there isn’t any warming.

I mean... it was literally THAT stupid.

Sorry, but your post is a lie.
 
He is appearing before the Bundestag (politicians) as are they. You asked whether he had appeared with politicians or lawyers.

Yeah but the debate was against other scientists
 
And there you have it ladies and gentlemen ... outside of college campuses you don't often get such in-your-face proud boasting about censorship ... complete with its own self-contradictions (bolded).
Todd has no obligation to promote conspiracy theories on his show.

E.g. if he has a show discussing cigarettes, he has no obligation to include a tobacco industry flack who denies that cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and so on.

And no, he wasn't confusing weather and climate. Climate change is causing extreme weather events.


If Chuck Todd says "We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The earth is getting hotter and human activity is a major cause, period."
"We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,"..."The science is settled even if political opinion is not." and Bloomberg and Jerry Brown said so ... who are we to argue.
Climate change deniers, apparently.
 
You know this ... how? Because they said so. That ain't science.

I have neither the spare time nor the inclination to argue climate denial with Trumpers.

Such crap should be in Conspiracy.
 
No. Primary questioner was [FONT=&quot]Lorenz Beutin, MdB (Bundestag member from Die Linke - the "The Left").[/FONT]

Who was the other person answering questions.

That’s the part you are missing here. It’s ok for journalists and politicians to ask questions. What I have a problem with is when you set up a debate on a scientific topic where one of the debaters is not a scientist.
 
Yes. Others were also invited.

Yes, so this is not an example of what I was describing. The violation of Deuce’s Principle of Debate Equality would have been if you sit a scientist in one chair at that meeting to ask questions of, and in the other chair is some rando lawyer or celebrity or politician or journalist. Because that gives a false impression that the scientist and the celebrity are equally qualified to answer these questions. Agree?
 
Back
Top Bottom