As we all know science and engineering are just opinions so why not ask a lawyer or a politician or a talking head to explain them.
Many opponents of policies designed to reduce emissions or prepare for climate change, including hosts and guests on cable news programs, use inaccurate and dismissive portrayals of established climate science in order to bolster their political arguments and preferences.And from media matters.
The top cable news networks relied on scientists for a mere 14 percent of all interviews when interpreting the significance of the climate report's findings. The outlets were far more likely to interview politicians, who made up more than one-third of all interviews on the day the NCA was released as well as the day after. Among these politicians who were interviewed, they were more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.
Oh dear there appears to be a 97% consensus amongst climate scientists, let's give equal billing to the 3% because it makes for better TeeVee.
Its like the argument against evolution, but the are no transitional fossils oh golly oopsey
We seem to have become a nation where opinion and belief are the equivalence of data and evidence, it is hardly surprising when we are subjected to uneducated blather 24/7. No crackpot theory is too bizarre to ignore, the world is 6000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary.
Rather than just consigning such blather to the trash can it is debated, what the hell for? To foment ignorance?
Yes both science and engineering change over time, due to new evidence and data they progress in a logical way, and not because some half baked idiot decides it's a way to win elections.
I have come to the conclusion that conservative just means lazy, both intellectually and physically, it is far easier to do nothing; however some things have a finite limit to which they can be ignored.
Just possibly this denial is an evolutionary trait
Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.Data as a predator, who knew, wait, what, no, evolution is bogus, the bible tells us so, oh, wait...damn.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Sunday said he doesn't believe that human activity is behind climate change.Where to fucking start, I mean really how cretinous and deceitful can you get?
"I don't agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists,
Including scientists, as if the information somehow sprung from Medusa's head.
Notion, what the fuck, decades of research is a notion?
Some scientists? NASA are just a bunch of people with notions.
Someone please tell me why I should listen to someone with no fundamental knowledge when compared to climate scientists?
Could they just kindly shut the fuck up and get out of the way.