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

[Cardinal]

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

Well I can see how it works on you. CNN is under no obligation to risk creating more bubbagones.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

I speak only for myself, and I reiterate no serious person claims AGW is a hoax. That is a mere AGW advocacy propaganda line.
Nor have I ever cited a conspiracy of any kind. Data manipulation is another matter, because in that case self-delusion enters the picture, and what might seem questionable in an objective context can be justified if it's for the right cause to save the world. I created a thread to discuss that eschatological dimension.
As for the morass that is paleoclimatology (Mann's legacy), widespread and self-interested malpractice does not constitute a hoax, it is merely human nature and groupthink in action. This was apparent from the beginning.

von Storch on MBH "Shoddiness"

Mar 4, 2005 – 12:59 PM
von Storch made the following new comments also in German from Technology Review, translation again courtesy of Benny Peiser, about Mann’s "shoddiness":

Two aspects deserve attention in connection with the discussion of Mann’s Hockey Stick: On the one hand, who is going to win the arguement; it’s the Tragedy of the Commons of climate research. McIntyre found a technical error in Mann’s methodology; in a SCIENCE study published in October 2004, my team discovered another, in our opinion even more serious error. It is actually the task of reviewers of specialist science journals to identify such errors. Yet with regards to NATURE, there is another criterion apart from that of scientific quality, which is often enough reviewed shoddily: the public interest, which is essentially equated here with the sales figures of the magazine. Mann’s study was apparently so interesting that it was accepted. A precarious fact. But it is even more precarious that the powerful people in charge of the IPCC turned the publication into an icon, the symbol of proof of anthropogenic climate change. That was not only stupid, but irresponsible. As a result of this elevation, the entire hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is being unjustifiably questioned. Which brings me to the second point: Is the hockey stick curve crucially affected by Mann’s shoddiness? We tested it by way of a one-thousand-year simulation with a climatic model and found that the effect wasn’t significant. The error is real, but probably not far-reaching. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that the debate about the temperature history of the last millenium can be conducted again unconditionally. Steve McIntyre contributed substantially to this development; he deserves to be thanked for it.

 

[marke]

What sort of moron believes the world is only 6000 years old?

Someone who understands the facts.

 

[Jack Hays]

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.

The leading proponents of the solar/GCR flux alternative climate hypothesis are neither American, nor right wing nor associated with fossil fuels. That's three strikes. You're out.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well I can see how it works on you. CNN is under no obligation to risk creating more bubbagones.

Don't be afraid to expose yourself to science that opposes AGW orthodoxy. You may learn something.

 

[Jack Hays]

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?

The immediate goal is to hold on long enough for the data to compel a revision.

 

[Cardinal]

Don't be afraid to expose yourself to science that opposes AGW orthodoxy. You may learn something.

I've seen enough of your so-called science. It ain't science. CNN is under no obligation to confuse people with that crap.

 

[bubbabgone]

The immediate goal is to hold on long enough for the data to compel a revision.

I'm not expecting much in that regard. Look how many problems with the IPCC have been exposed. And the model projections have never been right. Yet they trudge forward and they will as long as there is political advantage to be had.

 

[bubbabgone]

I've seen enough of your so-called science. It ain't science. CNN is under no obligation to confuse people with that crap.

What have you seen? How much do you know? From where did you learn it?

 

[Jack Hays]

I've seen enough of your so-called science. It ain't science. CNN is under no obligation to confuse people with that crap.

The Royal Astronomical Society, Nature and the Institute for Advanced Study, among others, would disagree with you.

 

[Cardinal]

What have you seen? How much do you know? From where did you learn it?

I see what you're doing, bubbagone. You're trying to lead me into a climate debate. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Cardinal]

The Royal Astronomical Society, Nature and the Institute for Advanced Study, among others, would disagree with you.

You, like bubbagone, are trying to lead me into a climate debate. As I told him, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Jack Hays]

You, like bubbagone, are trying to lead me into a climate debate. As I told him, it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. Just pointing out your claim was demonstrably false.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm not trying to lead you anywhere.

Drawing me into a climate debate is exactly what you were attempting to do. Don't bull**** me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Drawing me into a climate debate is exactly what you were attempting to do. Don't bull**** me.

And again, no. You made a false statement. I pointed that out. No need to go further.

 

[Cardinal]

And again, no. You made a false statement. I pointed that out. No need to go further.

Just out of curiosity, are you paid to be here? For as long as I can remember you've never not been on the climate forum.

 

[Visbek]

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

:roll:

Climate change deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco companies used -- and in some cases, used the same people. They deny the science; they deny the consensus view of scientists working in the field; they do almost no actual research; they attack the motivations of the scientists; they ignore the involvement of fossil fuel companies in the denial efforts, despite the obvious conflict of interest; the companies have known, via their own research, that their product is harming the environment.

People like Steve Milloy, Fred Singer, and Fred Seitz all denied both climate change, and the health impacts of tobacco.

 

[bubbabgone]

The Royal Astronomical Society, Nature and the Institute for Advanced Study, among others, would disagree with you.

Apparently it's a comfort zone thing.
If you're in there deep enough you convince yourself there's nothing more to learn even though all you've ever really learned was to repeat what you heard Chuck Todd say.
That's when the science becomes settled and censorship becomes acceptable.

 

[Phys251]

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. Pseudoscience is not science.

 

[bubbabgone]

:roll:

Climate change deniers are using the same tactics as the tobacco companies used -- and in some cases, used the same people. They deny the science; they deny the consensus view of scientists working in the field; they do almost no actual research; they attack the motivations of the scientists; they ignore the involvement of fossil fuel companies in the denial efforts, despite the obvious conflict of interest; the companies have known, via their own research, that their product is harming the environment.

People like Steve Milloy, Fred Singer, and Fred Seitz all denied both climate change, and the health impacts of tobacco.

In this case the Alarmists are like the Tobacco companies trying to silence the facts.
There is no alarmism consensus

 

[bubbabgone]

Good. Pseudoscience is not science.

Then there's nothing to be afraid of by exposing it.

 

[bubbabgone]

I see what you're doing, bubbagone. You're trying to lead me into a climate debate. Ain't gonna happen.

Why not? You said you've seen the so-called science.

 

[Phys251]

Then there's nothing to be afraid of by exposing it.

I agree. And let's make sure we do it properly. Which means not giving it a seat at the table which it does not in any way deserve.

 

[Cardinal]

Why not? You said you've seen the so-called science.

Thread title: "Chuck Todd says his show is 'not going to give time to climate deniers'"

The thread isn't about debating climate science. If that's what you want to do then go play with somebody else.

 

[jonny5]

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 mean, its NBC. What do you expect? Neither NBC nor Fox is where someone should go for a fair and balanced discussion of anything. No one is watching NBC that wants a fair and balanced discussion of anything, so its moot. If someone wants to be informed, they should go to multiple news sources and then go do the research themselves.