EPA chief wants scientists to debate climate on TV

[Dougie Cooper]

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.

And it would be likely to cause people to believe that skepticism of climate change is somehow on equal footing with actual scientific proof.

[Aitch]

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.

So we should stop gathering information and having discussions with one another?

[Orbitus]

So we should stop gathering information and having discussions with one another?

No, you should stop giving people that are wrong a platform. That is like Megyn Kelly giving Alex Jones a primetime interview. It didn't sway people away from the conspiracy nut, it probably got more people to follow him. There is no debate here, climate change is happening, humans are accelerating it, every country but the US has accepted this and started to help fix it.

[Xeones]

So we should stop gathering information and having discussions with one another?

No, information is important. Informed discussions are important. Treating bull shit lies funded by corporations as worthy of government sponsored debate is a thing I have a problem with. I'm not a big fan of treating lies as holding any legitimacy.

This debate would literally just be grounds for the deniers to spew bull shit while insulting scientists on the other side.

[Aitch]

No, you should stop giving people that are wrong a platform. That is like Megyn Kelly giving Alex Jones a primetime interview. It didn't sway people away from the conspiracy nut, it probably got more people to follow him. There is no debate here, climate change is happening, humans are accelerating it, every country but the US has accepted this and started to help fix it.

These people are nonetheless creating obstacles to progress. I don't see how ignoring an obstacle helps you overcome it.

[Orbitus]

These people are nonetheless creating obstacles to progress. I don't see how ignoring an obstacle helps you overcome it.

Giving them a platform to try to sound like a scientific discussion, doesn't change the fact that they will try to do anything they can to lie to people about Climate Change.

[Xeones]

These people are nonetheless creating obstacles to progress. I don't see how ignoring an obstacle helps you overcome it.

It isn't ignoring it, it's refusing to give it a platform.

These people aren't going to stop trying to fight climate change policy no matter how the debate turns out. It's not like they are gaining strength either. From what polling I've seen public opinion isn't on the extreme side of Trump and his EPA chief.

So from my perspective there isn't much to gain from a debate but there could be some losses if we start officially treating it as a legitimate debate and not just a republican talking point.

[Aitch]

Giving them a platform to try to sound like a scientific discussion, doesn't change the fact that they will try to do anything they can to lie to people about Climate Change.

My point is that there are millions of people who would consider themselves "skeptics", and the obstacles they pose to progress are substantial. I don't see how ignoring them solves this problem, unless you are proposing a different solution which I haven't seen.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't ignoring it, it's refusing to give it a platform.
The
These people aren't going to stop trying to fight climate change policy no matter how the debate turns out. It's not like they are gaining strength either. From what polling I've seen public opinion isn't on the extreme side of Trump and his EPA chief.

So from my perspective there isn't much to gain from a debate but there could be some losses if we start officially treating it as a legitimate debate and not just a republican talking point.

I'm not sure if there's much difference between those two things in this day and age. Either way, you're still not dealing with the problem.

[Dug]

My point is that there are millions of people who would consider themselves "skeptics", and the obstacles they pose to progress are substantial. I don't see how ignoring them solves this problem, unless you are proposing a different solution which I haven't seen.

You're not wrong but debating them and discussions haven't changed a thing either so what else can you do?

[Xeones]

I'm not sure if there's much difference between those two things in this day and age. Either way, you're still not dealing with the problem.

I don't know if we are going to be able to meet in the middle here. You seem to think holding a debate to legitimize lies will "deal with a problem".

I don't.

I feel like the education work that has been going on for the past two decades is more effective.

[Aitch]

You're not wrong but debating them and discussions haven't changed a thing either so what else can you do?

I think that assuming those people are lost souls, that they cannot be convinced, is a pessimistic fallacy. And I think that the pessimism contained within that assumption are fundamentally at odds with the whole idea of a society that makes progress through scientific understanding. We just have to continue to debate and to spread our message, that's all we can do.

[Dug]

I think that assuming those people are lost souls, that they cannot be convinced, is a pessimistic fallacy. And I think that the pessimism contained within that assumption are fundamentally at odds with the whole idea of a society that makes progress through scientific understanding. We just have to continue to debate and to spread our message, that's all we can do.

Bit dramatic but no not all are lost causes and plenty of people are learning every day about climate change but the "skeptics" (quoted for a reason) which are the ones that want to have """honest debate""" are truly lost causes in my eyes and should not be legitimized.

[Ozyorkbourne]

Time spent trying to convince 'skeptics' is time wasted as the majority of work needs to be done with governments and corporations. A lot of corporations are interested because some green proposals can actually save them money, so they get to increase profits while describing themselves as environmentally friendly.

[Deleted]

LOL - now I understand. You folks are scared shitless that the client deniers will expose what a fraud all this "settled science" is. If you weren't, you would be begging for an open debate so you could prove how "right" you are.

[Xeones]

LOL - now I understand. You folks are scared shitless that the client deniers will expose what a fraud all this "settled science" is. If you weren't, you would be begging for an open debate so you could prove how "right" you are.

Fraud huh?

I mean hey you have have such luminaries like the snow ball dipshit Inhofe. Why wouldn't I be afraid?

[Aitch]

Bit dramatic but no not all are lost causes and plenty of people are learning every day about climate change but the "skeptics" (quoted for a reason) which are the ones that want to have """honest debate""" are truly lost causes in my eyes and should not be legitimized.

If we convinced enough of the first type of skeptic you mentioned, would the second type of skeptic eventually lose their power and influence?

[Edge-]

LOL - now I understand. You folks are scared shitless that the client deniers will expose what a fraud all this "settled science" is. If you weren't, you would be begging for an open debate so you could prove how "right" you are.

Except the debate has happened for decades, and the deniers have been proven wrong for decades.

What do you think another debate is going to do, finally score a single win for deniers? Aren't ya'll tired of losing by now?

[primalmatter]

Except the debate has happened for decades, and the deniers have been proven wrong for decades.

What do you think another debate is going to do, finally score a single win for deniers? Aren't ya'll tired of losing by now?

It is difficult to prove either way given how altered the data has been by the community insisting its a problem.

Regardless conservation is something we should be invested in regardless. The ends justify the means from my perspective.

[BrerBear]

Oh well - I though it was a positive effort from Pruitt but from the few replies I can see that you folks are completely against an open, honest debate.

You thought nothing of the sort. You knew it was a way to give climate skeptics an outsized voice to convince rubes that theirs is an equally-held position.
You are as transparent as Trump's idiotic border wall proposal.

[Deleted]

Aren't ya'll tired of losing by now?

Losing? When have I lost?

There are a TON of scientists out there that think Michael Mann and his Henny Penny ilk is full of shit. Let's let THEM slug it out