NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

[Intrepid]

Yet another prediction that will not come true in the slightest.

Dude, that's the Mediterranean Sea. That picture is an attempt at comedy, not science.

 

[acptulsa]

Dude, that's the Mediterranean Sea. That picture is an attempt at comedy, not science.

What?! You mean Dodge City isn't really in Sicily?!

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1988:

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1975:

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1981:

 

[Anti Globalist]

Fun fact: When Al Gore was born there were 130,000 glaciers.

Today that number of glaciers is still 130,000.

 

[RJB]

In 5th grade and earlier grades, I heard about the coming ice age due to pollution stopping the sun rays from reaching the Earth. In 6th, 7th and 8th they introduce the greenhouse effect that was supposed to warm the Earth due to pollution. They were taught simultaneously as competing hypothesises. I remember the students laughed saying that the green house effect and global cooling would cancel each other.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1856:

https://twitter.com/NBCLX/status/1458487927449792519

 

[acptulsa]

 

[Anti Globalist]

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1972:

 

[Anti Globalist]

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Hopefully this won't spur growth of 'Chuck Todd deniers'.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately, “acid rain” was a real problem. It was a result of pollution, that for the most part has been dramatically reduced in the US. Real problem, with real solutions.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1981:

 

[Anti Globalist]

Climate change is a never ending grift to extract money.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1981:

I went from "Climate Change Skeptic" to "I don't care" the moment I listened to Michael Shellenberger talk about it.

Anyone who is an advocate of "climate change", or even unsure, should give him a sounding.

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2010:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2020:

 

[DamianTV]

Lets just translate this:

"If you do not express an opinion that we approve of, we will not permit you to speak."

 

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1989: