EPA chief wants scientists to debate climate on TV

[xChurch]

Cool, will this be before or after the debate on the legitimacy of Gravity?

[Blade Wolf]

Cool, will this be before or after the debate on the legitimacy of Gravity?

Before, i have a theory that it's actually magic.

[Zarc]

As long as there's a panel of 100 scientists and 97 of them acknowledge the scientific consensus about man-made climate change I'm fine with it. With each of the 100 having the exact same speaking time, of course. The 3 debaters who represent findings that doesn't outright support the scientific consensus about man-made climate change should reflect the spectrum of conclusions that exists within that 3% of climate scientists.

[unfilteredJW]

As long as there's a panel of 100 scientists and 97 of them acknowledge the scientific consensus about man-made climate change I'm fine with it. With each of the 100 having the exact same speaking time, of course. The 3 debaters who represent findings that doesn't outright support the scientific consensus about man-made climate change should reflect the spectrum of conclusions that exists within that 3% of climate scientists.

Around 3:30

[Xeones]

Isn't this EPA chief the one who fired all the scientists and replaced them with industry personnel?

What "scientists" does he have left to get to debate?

[Kujako]

Wouldn't any such debate, done correctly or not, be in violation of the new rule against "politicizing environmental issues"?

[DarkTZeratul]

Isn't this EPA chief the one who fired all the scientists and replaced them with industry personnel?

What "scientists" does he have left to get to debate?

The ones who agree with him, obviously.

[Machismo]

I love the idea of debate, but this looks more like an attempt to try and give equal footing for those who lack evidence. It reminds me of when the Noah's Ark douchebag wanted to try and debate someone on television.

Let's have the debate, and lets watch all the ignorant people stick to their narrative. In the end, this solves nothing, because it has been demonstrated that the more evidence is presented, the more people will cling to their ignorance.

[Kujako]

The ones who agree with him, obviously.

Does Brigham Young offer a "science" degree?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Every time Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye debate climate change with "skeptics", the real scientists mop the floor with the "skeptics". And the skeptics play that game where they declare they are the winners "cause they are" without having presented any evidence at all, just a bunch of talking points and dog whistles that have been proven untrue a thousand times over.

Skeptics don't want a fair debate. They don't want a debate at all. They want to play the pigeon on the chess board where they knock over the pieces and declare victory.

- - - Updated - - -

Around 3:30

Start watching that same video at 2:15, he explains why people still think there's a debate. "Because they constantly see it being debated on TV."

It becomes abundantly clear why this dipshit of an EPA chief wants there to be debates on TV, it creates the illusion that there's still somehow a debate on this issue, when there isn't.

[Blur4stuff]

Let's debate flat earth theory too. Or maybe the one where people live at the center of the Earth.

[Felya]

Isn't this EPA chief the one who fired all the scientists and replaced them with industry personnel?

What "scientists" does he have left to get to debate?

Yes, same guy who did this:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...627-story.html

EPA chief met with Dow Chemical CEO before deciding not to ban toxic pesticide

- - - Updated - - -

Let's debate flat earth theory too. Or maybe the one where people live at the center of the Earth.

Let's have a debate over pesticides that EPA deemed inhibit brain development, even in tiny doses. No, that debate happened in a Houston hotel with the pesticide maker CEO.

[Grapemask]

I'm a scientist too then. I'm looking forward to seeing academics defend their positions with objective facts rather than flawed models that haven't accurately predicted a thing.

If you perform science using scientific methods and scientific information, and your science can be reproduced by other scientists, then you sure are a scientist.

I assume those flawed model things are just random speculation and not anything to do with climate change science, which has been proven as solid as anything else we've proven in science... except to the skeptics, who may as well tell us the earth is flat because the science on that one isn't much more solid.

[Vankrys]

Why are you so afraid of debate? Why are you afraid to have the "general consensus" challenged?

a few month ago, more like a year ago, if someone would ask my opinion about climate change, i'd say honestly i don't know much about the topic.

So i start to make some research, watch and read arguments for both side, presenting their evidence, rebuking one another.

I came to the conclusion climate change is real and man made. If such a debate is televised, the climate change deniers will be completely crush by the overwhelming mountain of evidence. It's not a coincidence that 99% of scientist studying the phenomenon are in agreement.

Republicans, you do not want to televised such debate. You want to keep your constituant ignorant. As soon as someone show them the evidence and explain them in layman term, you are f***ed.

So do i want such a debate, yeah sure, bring it on, it'll be interesting. For some it's a waste of time, money and energy but honestly, convincing more and more of the general public is always a good thing.

[Edge-]

a few month ago, more like a year ago, if someone would ask my opinion about climate change, i'd say honestly i don't know much about the topic.

So i start to make research watch and read argument for both side, presenting their evidence, rebuking one another.

I came to the conclusion climate change is real and man made. If such a debate is televised, the climate change deniers will be completely crush by the overwhelming mountain of evidence. It's not a coincidence that 99% of scientist studying the phenomenon are in agreement.

Republicans, you do not want to televised such debate. You want to keep your constituant ignorant. As soon as someone show them the evidence and explain them in layman term, you are f***ed.

So do i want such a debate, yeah sure, bring it on, it'll be interesting. For some it's a waste of time, money and energy but honestly, convincing more and more of the general public is always a good thing.

This is more or less modern climate change deniers and "skeptics".

[Wyrt]

Ok, but there's like a giant chunk of Antarctica the size of Delaware saying the climate is warming.

Oh, let me guess, it's really because of the squirrel from Ice Age?

[Dug]

As if it would change the minds of "skeptics" anyways. You can shove mountains of evidence in their face and they'll continue to deny but if they want to be made to look like a fool on TV all the more power to them. Hell, that's probably their strategy anyways. Right wing shills just getting more ammunition to take back to their brain dead followers to go "Look at these elites! They talked down to me like I was stupid! And they think you are stupid!"

[Aitch]

I'm honestly surprised at the opposition to this idea. I want my opponent's ludicrous ideas exposed, not driven underground. We all know that the best disinfectant is sunlight.

[Xeones]

I'm honestly surprised at the opposition to this idea. I want my opponent's ludicrous ideas exposed, not driven underground. We all know that the best disinfectant is sunlight.

Problem is there have been a bunch of studies that show the more information you use in an argument the less likely people are to be swayed.

[Paranoid Android]

So basically the scientific community will debate Pruitt, he won't believe them and nothing will be accomplished. Seems par for the course for this administraton.

Sounds like the MMO-C Forums. I come with facts and the posters here just deny the facts and keep spouting their opinion.