EPA chief wants scientists to debate climate on TV

[Arenis]

I very much doubt the average American citizen is capable of understanding the validity of the arguments.

Even better, I'm absolutely sure he will use this as a propaganda piece, by shouting unfounded claims and misrepresented noisy graphs to impress the average citizen.

[Zarc]

Around 3:30

I hadn't seen that. Awesome.

[Garnier Fructis]

What an awesome idea. I would definitely tune in for that.

Wouldn't it be great to have both the proponents and the skeptics get together and air their differences? Who knows - maybe they could come to a general consensus and tackle the the issue together.

Pretending that climate scientists and skeptics are on equal footing in any respect is an insult. And that's exactly what is implied by this scheme.

Further, this sort of debate is stacked against good reasoning. Skeptics can rattle off a bunch of nonsense quickly, but to thoroughly debunk it requires a lot of background knowledge that you can't explain nearly as fast. Or, to put it another way, it takes way longer to debunk bullshit than it does to spew it.

- - - Updated - - -

To build on what I just wrote, how often have we seen this here? Some skeptic says some stupid shit about volcanoes, and by the time a solid response has been pieced together, they've moved onto some stupid shit about Antarctic ice or something.

[Endus]

Basically. The Administration is likely to get a bunch of people with no evidence, no scientific background and who are completely unwilling to support their claims to "debate" scientists who will of course, present facts and research and studies with no other outcome than the other side to resort to yelling, insults and conspiracies.

The problem is, since no right-minded scientist would participate in such stupidity the Administration will pick out "scientists" who are unqualified to speak on the subject, or are actually skeptics who will put up a poor defense just to make actual science look defeated.

Imagine if the government wanted to "debate" military actions it was considering by putting together a panel of A> generals/admirals and military historians/strategists, and B> pacifist vegan hippies who, like, really hate war, man.

Would that generate a balanced and informed debate? No. It would be stupid and it's disrespectful to everyone on the A side of the panel. When the discussion should ONLY involve the A side, who have plenty of discussion points to dig into without delving into stupid bullshit like "what if, like, everyone just . . . stopped fighting, man?"

[Garnier Fructis]

If there is one thing for sure, it is there is no absolutes regarding science. That is the beauty of it - it is ever evolving.

It builds on itself, it progresses. It doesn't just throw things out and change direction every few decades.

Which is why this talk of 'no absolutes' is pointless. Yeah it's technically true. But it means practically nothing.

[want my Slimjim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temper...50s-present.29

A basic thermostat, sure, but that's not terribly accurate. If you want to get accurate, you're wrong.

no I'm not wrong that however on Wikipedia is wrong, which I ain't surprised. Do your research.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope it's been 80s-90s. 50 years ago it was mostly mid-high 70's 50 years ago from what I see.

- - - Updated - - -



100% false and completely off topic.

Nope wrong, its been the same as before. And the lavery part not having to do with is 100© true but go on believing in your alternative facts idc.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said; if you don't understand how thermometers work, maybe. To everyone else, who understands what temperature is and how it's measured, there's obviously a rapid warming trend over the last century.

Bad graph and incorrect

- - - Updated - - -

Articles of secession from 7 states say it was over their right to keep slaves. Try again.

Oh I get why the original person said that, you disregard real life evidence as fake or even non existent, so you can believe what you want.

Another lie that the government has made to make you believe. Any real Christian sons and daughters of the south will tell you it was about liberation from the tyrannical north. We're still around and we're winning. God bless Trump.

[Endus]

no I'm not wrong that however on Wikipedia is wrong, which I ain't surprised. Do your research.

Because you refuse to? Nope. You've provided nothing, and at this point, are just baiting, so I'm not going to keep biting.

Provide some actual evidence if you want anyone to take you seriously, because right now, you're just satirizing yourself.

[Wyrt]

Another lie that the government has made to make you believe. Any real Christian sons and daughters of the south will tell you it was about liberation from the tyrannical north. We're still around and we're winning. God bless Trump.

Is a Delaware size chunk of Antarctica's ice breaking off just another government lie then?

[Machismo]

no I'm not wrong that however on Wikipedia is wrong, which I ain't surprised. Do your research.

- - - Updated - - -



Nope wrong, its been the same as before. And the lavery part not having to do with is 100© true but go on believing in your alternative facts idc.

- - - Updated - - -



Bad graph and incorrect

- - - Updated - - -



Another lie that the government has made to make you believe. Any real Christian sons and daughters of the south will tell you it was about liberation from the tyrannical north. We're still around and we're winning. God bless Trump.

I am definitely enjoying your attempts to back up any claims you are making.

[pathora44]

I am definitely enjoying your attempts to back up any claims you are making.

All to the sounds of banjos and the sound to rednecks fucking their cousins in the background.

- - - Updated - - -

Is a Delaware size chunk of Antarctica's ice breaking off just another government lie then?

Stupid libtard snowflake your just buying into the globalist Soros agenda. Everyone knows that glacier didn't break off just another lie the government feeds you like Lizard men aren't making water that turns you gay or there isn't a basement in D.C. pizza parlor where Democrats run their child sex ring.

[Grapemask]

Slim's gotta be trolling. Part of me knows these people exists, but I don't think I'm ready to admit I'm seeing one here.

[pathora44]

I hadn't seen that. Awesome.

John Oliver is far and away the best late night news show on. He is hilarious and so informative.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Another lie that the government has made to make you believe. Any real Christian sons and daughters of the south will tell you it was about liberation from the tyrannical north. We're still around and we're winning. God bless Trump.

What really happened in history, and what you envision, seem to be two entirely different things. The southern states, the brothers and sisters of the south, wrote letters of secession saying "Well the North wants to take our slaves away and we won't have any of that."

So what you're saying is, you believe the letters of secession written by these states were false flags planted by the federal government to make people believe it was about slavery? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. History revisionists are all cute.

I do like how you have no rebuttal to anyone who's saying you're wrong (whom also provide evidence as to why you're wrong with) "NO UR WRONG" with nothing to back it up.

[Noradin]

Sure let them have the debate, and let the climate scientist read word for word from their peer reviewed studies, as well as the guidelines from the IPCC. Or is that more liberal alarmist democrat plantation hysteria?

And then have droves of people side with the other side because they always sympathise with the underdogs?

[Sorshen]

Would the debate be like Nye vs Ham where you'd facepalm every time it was Ham's turn to bring an argument?

[Deleted]

And then have droves of people side with the other side because they always sympathise with the underdogs?

There's no saving people who "side with the underdog", instead of looking at science objectively.

[ati87]

John Oliver already did this but it's really hard and chaotic

[Mafic]

This in theory is supposed to plant a seed into the public psyche that human induced climate change isn't a settle matter. This level of persuasion is often done by the Trump administration. But this would backfire on the Trump administration, because it would reinforce that climate science has come to a majority consensus on human induced climate change.

Since scientists do not debate in absolutes the thinking from the Trump administration is they can use semantics and sophistry to wedge doubt about the consesus on global warming. But the reality is many scientists are willing to say unequivocally that this is a near certainty at 99%.

[Endus]

This in theory is supposed to plant a seed into the public psyche that human induced climate change isn't a settle matter. This level of persuasion is often done by the Trump administration. But this would backfire on the Trump administration, because it would reinforce that climate science has come to a majority consensus on human induced climate change.

Since scientists do not debate in absolutes the thinking from the Trump administration is they can use semantics and sophistry to wedge doubt about the consesus on global warming. But the reality is many scientists are willing to say unequivocally that this is a near certainty at 99%.

Right. It's an attempt to drive a dishonest wedge.

"So you have incontrovertible, 100% proof that this is happening?"
"Well, it's not 100% proven that we're in this room talking to each other right now, we MIGHT be brains in jars experiencing advanced AI, we can be 99.99% sure, but there's never anything 100% sure outside of pure math."
"So you're NOT 100% sure, which means you might be wrong."
"That's not what I said. I said it was a dumb question."
"THEY'RE NOT 100% SURE. WE WIN FOREVER."
"Jesus Christ."

[Vankrys]

This in theory is supposed to plant a seed into the public psyche that human induced climate change isn't a settle matter. This level of persuasion is often done by the Trump administration. But this would backfire on the Trump administration, because it would reinforce that climate science has come to a majority consensus on human induced climate change.

Since scientists do not debate in absolutes the thinking from the Trump administration is they can use semantics and sophistry to wedge doubt about the consesus on global warming. But the reality is many scientists are willing to say unequivocally that this is a near certainty at 99%.

I wonder if Macron convinced Trump to change his position on Paris climate accord during Trump's visit in Paris a few days ago.
Ordinarily, i would say no way, but then Trump said "something could happen with respect to the paris accord, we'll see what happens"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7840021.html

If Trump effectively change his mind, this is a huge win for Macron.