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

[Jack Hays]

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?

No. Your objection is off target. The scientists were not debating each other. Each was there to speak to and be questioned by the Bundestag members.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes, that is accurate. Thank you for correcting your falsehood.

Right. If you hand wave away warming, there is no warming.

Brilliant.

Wonder why Chuck Todd doesn’t have you on the show.

 

[Jack Hays]

Right. If you hand wave away warming, there is no warming.

Brilliant.

Wonder why Chuck Todd doesn’t have you on the show.

Sorry, but you're backsliding.

 

[Rogue Valley]

We're supposed to believe climate-change is a hoax. Just like we were supposed to believe Obama was born in Kenya and Mexico would pay for the wall.

Sorry, but I and the majority of Americans opt out of embracing such nonsense....

Polling: Consensus emerges in climate change debate

The Story of 2018 Was Climate Change

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Americans are worried about climate change

Chuck Todd is not the outlier here. The OP and climate-denial hacks are the outliers now in America. The new Flat-Earthers.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Good on him, but it would be better if it were a network-wide decision. It's a start, though. As Obama would say, "Better is good."

 

[Threegoofs]

We're supposed to believe climate-change is a hoax. Just like we were supposed to believe Obama was born in Kenya and Mexico would pay for the wall.

Sorry, but I and the majority of Americans opt out of embracing such nonsense....

Polling: Consensus emerges in climate change debate

The Story of 2018 Was Climate Change

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Americans are worried about climate change

Chuck Todd is not the outlier here. The OP and climate-denial hacks are the outliers now in America. The new Flat-Earthers.

I wonder if the OP is embarrassed he started this thread.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The leading scientific proponents of an alternative climate hypothesis (solar/GCR flux) are neither American nor right wing.

They're the biggest audience and consumers of the tripe that anti-science producers create.

Science doesn't care about your nonsense Jack, your blogs and paid plugs that you diarrhea all over this forum, AGW continues.

 

[Jack Hays]

We're supposed to believe climate-change is a hoax. Just like we were supposed to believe Obama was born in Kenya and Mexico would pay for the wall.

Sorry, but I and the majority of Americans opt out of embracing such nonsense....

Chuck Todd is not the outlier here. The OP and climate-denial hacks are the outliers now in America. The new Flat-Earthers.

No serious person claims there is a hoax. That's just an AGW advocacy talking point to discredit their scientific opponents.
The principal scientific opposition to AGW orthodoxy is neither American nor right wing.

 

[Jack Hays]

They're the biggest audience and consumers of the tripe that anti-science producers create.

Science doesn't care about your nonsense Jack, your blogs and paid plugs that you diarrhea all over this forum, AGW continues.

Wrong all around. Since you did not reason yourself into your belief, I cannot reason you out of it. But the continued and coming years of falling temperatures will change the debate.

 

[holbritter]

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.

He has ruined that show. Has taken a show that was fair to both sides and shoved it to the left. Tim Russert is turning in his grave.

 

[bubbabgone]

as is the case with many of your one liners, false.

On what do you base your AGW conviction?

 

[Threegoofs]

No serious person claims there is a hoax. That's just an AGW advocacy talking point to discredit their scientific opponents.
The principal scientific opposition to AGW orthodoxy is neither American nor right wing.

Deniers around here claim it’s s hoax every day. Your blogs you regurgitate claim it’s s hoax. The hoax line is sometime replaced by ‘librul conspiracy’, or ‘manipulating data’.

Jesus- multiple threads you’ve started claim that all the paleoclimate literature is a hoax- that somehow ALL the researchers for the last 20 years have been repeating the same mistakes that keep reconfirming the hockey stick... yet somehow this is missed by virtually all paleoclimate researchers, journal editors, and the IPCC. That’s the very definition of a hoax!

So thanks for confirming you’re not a serious person.

 

[Helix]

On what do you base your AGW conviction?

reality.

 

[bubbabgone]

We're supposed to believe climate-change is a hoax. Just like we were supposed to believe Obama was born in Kenya and Mexico would pay for the wall.

Sorry, but I and the majority of Americans opt out of embracing such nonsense....

Polling: Consensus emerges in climate change debate

The Story of 2018 Was Climate Change

More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Americans are worried about climate change

Chuck Todd is not the outlier here. The OP and climate-denial hacks are the outliers now in America. The new Flat-Earthers.

Links to public opinion polls from sites that promote climate alarmism in a thread about deliberate censorship of opposition science? Really? Doesn't it occur to you that maybe that's how you arrived at your firm beliefs?

 

[Threegoofs]

reality.

Well. Bubba bases his ‘conviction’ on reading ten year old stolen climategate emails.

 

[bubbabgone]

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.



Climate change deniers, apparently.

Good point about cigarettes but the analogy is climate alarmism : tobacco companies.

 

[bubbabgone]

Good on him, but it would be better if it were a network-wide decision. It's a start, though. As Obama would say, "Better is good."

It would be better if both sides faced off.
Science doesn't get settled ... it gets challenged.

 

[Cardinal]

It would be better if both sides faced off.
Science doesn't get settled ... it gets challenged.

No. That gives viewers the impression that the anti-science position has some validity and should be considered seriously.

 

[rjay]

Chuck Todd is not afraid to announce to the world that he is stuck on scientifically stupid. What sort of moron keeps sucking up and spitting back out fake science propaganda without question?

Yeah, next thing you know he will do a show about the earth and not allow flat-earthers on the panel. He will do a show about germ-theory and not allow anti-vaxers on. He will do a show about evolution and not allow Intelligent Design folks on.

If these shows don't allow fact based discussions to be 'balanced', where will it end?

 

[bubbabgone]

reality.

Such subject matter knowledge depth is awesome.

 

[iguanaman]

The leading scientific proponents of an alternative climate hypothesis (solar/GCR flux) are neither American nor right wing.

First there was no warming, then when it became undeniable the warming is caused by anything but greenhouse gases. Deniers are a bad joke funded by a cartel that cares only about their profits made by pumping money out of the ground. That's why it is the right wing and the party of greed that are the #1 deniers. It's a match made in heaven.

 

[bubbabgone]

No. That gives viewers the impression that the anti-science position has some validity and should be considered seriously.

Then the alarmist would win easily for all to see.
Only one side is afraid to be challenged.

 

[Cardinal]

Then the alarmist would win easily for all to see.
Only one side is afraid to be challenged.

Except that's not how it works because the anti-science side isn't arguing with science, but with anti-science. That just ends up confusing the viewers, leading them to shake their heads and conclude that it's a he-said-she-said thing.

 

[bubbabgone]

Wrong all around. Since you did not reason yourself into your belief, I cannot reason you out of it. But the continued and coming years of falling temperatures will change the debate.

I'd like to believe that but do you see many here who even know there's a debate to be had right now or are interested enough to find out?

 

[bubbabgone]

Except that's not how it works because the anti-science side isn't arguing with science, but with anti-science. That just ends up confusing the viewers, leading them to shake their heads and conclude that it's a he-said-she-said thing.

How would you know if you're never exposed to it?