It's fun to be worried!
On a recent episode of the libertarian talk show The Independents on FoxBusiness, the topic focused on climate change/global warming. The guest list included Bjorn Lomborg, Bill Nye and Daniel J. Weiss (from the Center for America Progess. Remember kids, anything with the word 'progress' in its title you can safely disregard).
I knew things were off to a roughl start when Nye came out swinging by being surprised that a show's hosts on FOX weren't 'deniers.'
It was all downhill from there as Nye hurled a 'Manhattan will sink' strawman to dreaming of inventing 'very big batteries.' Nye would have been better served leaving the idealism at the door and engage with strict facts.
Nye never got back on track relying on sophistry and emotions to plead his case.
He chose to take a defensive, even condescending, approach as if he were talking to school kids. It was an insult not just to the panel who asking real-world, pertinent questions, but to the audience including myself. I further think the panel took the high ground with the guests by not adding more politics to an already politicized and highly emotional topic.
When asked specific questions regarding cost/benefits analysis (thus exposing the possible impractical costs associated with their dubious solutions), all he could do was, aside from look stunned, respond along the lines, with a smug tone, of the usual we must 'do something, anything' vaudeville act. I feel we can be forgiven if we view 'the cost would be greater if we do nothing' argument with a healthy skepticism. That's how we end up with bad public policy that unleashes unintended consequences.
All I want answered is why can't people agree on facts but question if policies are bad for whatever reasons? Maybe they have good, efficient solutions but I'm not hearing them; or at least not on this night.
Moreover, he invoked the myth of 'consensus.'
The consensus thing is interesting. I merely look at Galileo - I know, the past but a good example- to see what consensus can look like. In fact, aren't we supposed to challenge consensus? Isn't that how science progresses? How can you shut out other views and call them 'deniers?' Sounds pretty archaic to me.
Alas, he later responded to the question as to why climate change remains low on voters interests by saying "he failed" and that they were not getting the message across. Maybe he needs a more colorful bow tie or add a beanie to his attire or something.
Really? I can't turn on the television, or pick up a paper or go the grocery store or, or read about an award winning environmental documentary, or see David Suzuki and Al Gore (and their carbon footprints larger than Sasquatch and the average person) dancing with polar bears, or green weeks on NBC, or watch comedy shows filled with pro-green hipster dialog, be part of a casual conversation without the topic being discussed.
In the end, is it possible climate change stats have been so inaccurate it lends itself to all kind of emotional and moral appeals as well as sensationalism wrapped up in rational jargon? The earth has been climate changing for billions of years. Are we that arrogant as a species to actually believe we can make a difference against Mother Nature's wishes? What about all the corruption and waste sank in green companies often connected to cronyism and if not, engage in technologies the economy and general consumer is not ready for?
I'm admittedly a lousy layman but doesn't incorrect predictions and waste in subsidies point to serious flaws in the premise? Has it conclusively proven that global warming is caused by man and the root of all our 'bad' weather?
If yes, it doesn't sound settled to me. Sounds like, if anything, it needs a shot of Pepto.
This is part of the interview:
********
The best science is emotional:
/drops cigarette from lips.
Where did Tarzan touch you, liwwle monkey?
On a recent episode of the libertarian talk show The Independents on FoxBusiness, the topic focused on climate change/global warming. The guest list included Bjorn Lomborg, Bill Nye and Daniel J. Weiss (from the Center for America Progess. Remember kids, anything with the word 'progress' in its title you can safely disregard).
I knew things were off to a roughl start when Nye came out swinging by being surprised that a show's hosts on FOX weren't 'deniers.'
It was all downhill from there as Nye hurled a 'Manhattan will sink' strawman to dreaming of inventing 'very big batteries.' Nye would have been better served leaving the idealism at the door and engage with strict facts.
Nye never got back on track relying on sophistry and emotions to plead his case.
He chose to take a defensive, even condescending, approach as if he were talking to school kids. It was an insult not just to the panel who asking real-world, pertinent questions, but to the audience including myself. I further think the panel took the high ground with the guests by not adding more politics to an already politicized and highly emotional topic.
When asked specific questions regarding cost/benefits analysis (thus exposing the possible impractical costs associated with their dubious solutions), all he could do was, aside from look stunned, respond along the lines, with a smug tone, of the usual we must 'do something, anything' vaudeville act. I feel we can be forgiven if we view 'the cost would be greater if we do nothing' argument with a healthy skepticism. That's how we end up with bad public policy that unleashes unintended consequences.
All I want answered is why can't people agree on facts but question if policies are bad for whatever reasons? Maybe they have good, efficient solutions but I'm not hearing them; or at least not on this night.
Moreover, he invoked the myth of 'consensus.'
The consensus thing is interesting. I merely look at Galileo - I know, the past but a good example- to see what consensus can look like. In fact, aren't we supposed to challenge consensus? Isn't that how science progresses? How can you shut out other views and call them 'deniers?' Sounds pretty archaic to me.
Alas, he later responded to the question as to why climate change remains low on voters interests by saying "he failed" and that they were not getting the message across. Maybe he needs a more colorful bow tie or add a beanie to his attire or something.
Really? I can't turn on the television, or pick up a paper or go the grocery store or, or read about an award winning environmental documentary, or see David Suzuki and Al Gore (and their carbon footprints larger than Sasquatch and the average person) dancing with polar bears, or green weeks on NBC, or watch comedy shows filled with pro-green hipster dialog, be part of a casual conversation without the topic being discussed.
I think environmental issues take up its share of space in
media. They push hard.
He didn't fail because of that. He failed because people call bull shit. They're also getting tired of being treated as if they're rubes.
Weiss for his part was just as bad if not worse. What astonished me was him publicly refusing to debate someone on a show. If I were the producer of the show I'd take him by the collar and tell him to man up and debate rather than hand waive and act like a progressive dip shit.
The panel didn't have to do much to showcase the dishonesty at work here. 'Give us green subsidies, because Manhattan and you're stupid" was pretty much the message I got.
The one guy who made any tangent and cogent sense was Lomborg - who looks an awful lot like Niklas Lidstrom.
He didn't fail because of that. He failed because people call bull shit. They're also getting tired of being treated as if they're rubes.
Weiss for his part was just as bad if not worse. What astonished me was him publicly refusing to debate someone on a show. If I were the producer of the show I'd take him by the collar and tell him to man up and debate rather than hand waive and act like a progressive dip shit.
The panel didn't have to do much to showcase the dishonesty at work here. 'Give us green subsidies, because Manhattan and you're stupid" was pretty much the message I got.
The one guy who made any tangent and cogent sense was Lomborg - who looks an awful lot like Niklas Lidstrom.
In the end, is it possible climate change stats have been so inaccurate it lends itself to all kind of emotional and moral appeals as well as sensationalism wrapped up in rational jargon? The earth has been climate changing for billions of years. Are we that arrogant as a species to actually believe we can make a difference against Mother Nature's wishes? What about all the corruption and waste sank in green companies often connected to cronyism and if not, engage in technologies the economy and general consumer is not ready for?
I'm admittedly a lousy layman but doesn't incorrect predictions and waste in subsidies point to serious flaws in the premise? Has it conclusively proven that global warming is caused by man and the root of all our 'bad' weather?
If yes, it doesn't sound settled to me. Sounds like, if anything, it needs a shot of Pepto.
This is part of the interview:
********
The best science is emotional:
/drops cigarette from lips.
Where did Tarzan touch you, liwwle monkey?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.