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

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Oh yeah, and Al Gore said New Yorkers would be ankle deep in water by now. And that was if carbon production slowed. Carbon production has accelerated worldwide, and yet there are still no dolphins in the subways.

I guess he figured time would stop before 20 years passed, so nobody would remember or call out his global warming, err. Climate change, bullshit.

But I remembered. I remembered back then all the idiots yelling about the end of the world, and how in 20 years they would have to eat their shit.
And I'll remember 20 years from now, when still not a god damned thing has drastically changed.

But this time, I'll know: the idiots have no shame or memory, so they'll still be bleating about how we only have 20 years left, 20 years from now.

They said it would be much deeper than your ankles:



And then it would insta-freeze:

 

[Suzanimal]

There are interesting cross-issue comparisons to be made. I am not aware of any statistics on coinciding opinions on AGW and population control, but it certainly sounds plausible.

More to the point, how many AGW zealots are also pro-US immigration zealots? If AGW is such an urgent issue, why take people from a village in Guatemala, where their carbon footprint is relatively tiny, and move them to the US, where they will have one of the largest carbon footprints? Seems to be a glaring contradiction.

Specs is right. In just about all the global warming climate change articles I've come across wasted precious minutes of my life reading, there has been at least a hint of population reduction. To be fair, I haven't read that many BUT just look at the tv shows and movies - just look at how they changed Thanos's reasons for killing half the population in Infinity Wars. Now, Thanos is a bad guy BUT they make his reasons seem noble. In the comics, he did it for a piece of tail.

I'm not saying most lefties would agree with Thanos's methods (after all, they could be the ones disappeared) but they are definitely sympathetic to his reasons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2018/04/30/avengers-infinity-war-overpopulation/#5532fcba1c58

 

[Danke]

 

[Danke]

 

[Stratovarious]

I wish Al Gore would share some of the GW around my 'neck of the woods' ,
its 28f here , in the frgn desert...........brrr,,,,,,,

 

[Stratovarious]

Braking' upsidedown NPI NEWS*

In legislation recently passed by Congress, all 2019 US passenger vehicles
will have 'personal CO2 breathalizers' installed that will enable the starter
switch provided the operator does not exceed Federal Emissions Standards
as co-sponsored and written by Al Gore, transponders will trigger internal
audit stations throughout the continental US and initiate armed response
teams, as well as armed drones to offending operator locations, in an
effort to abate CO2 infections to adjacent personnel.
-
In other news;
Al Gore's 2019 personal vehicles have been impounded, the story
is unfolding, we're going live, on location in 3, 2.......................
-
*NPI
Never Printed International

 

[Occam's Banana]

Google Won’t Fund Sites, YouTube Videos That Deny Climate Change
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sites-youtube-videos-that-deny-climate-change
Mark Bergen (07 October 2021)

Alphabet Inc.'s Google will ban advertisements and stop funding media that contradict scientific consensus on climate change, another attempt from the internet giant to stamp out environmental conspiracies it has fueled for years.

The new prohibition applies to commercials Google places online, as well as the websites and YouTube videos that run Google ads. It includes any content that denies human contributions to global warming or treats “climate change as a hoax or a scam,” Google said in a blog post Thursday.

Google, the largest digital-ad seller, has been criticized for letting companies looking to debunk or deny climate change buy search ads. On YouTube, which Google owns, inaccurate videos about the climate received more than 21 million views and frequently ran ads, according to 2020 research from the nonprofit organization Avaaz. That report prompted a congressional scolding of Google, which has otherwise touted its environmental record.

Earlier this week, Google released several eco-friendly features for search, Maps and other services. In recent years, YouTube has tried to stop recommending climate deniers to viewers. Facebook Inc. has taken similar steps on its platforms.

For the new ads rule, Google said it consulted with experts behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The company will begin enforcing the ban in November.

 

[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 ...).

Never, ever forget: The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] is settled - follow The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP]!!!

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1969:

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 1989: The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2004:

 

[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 2007:

https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1451022117294592003

Nobel Laureate Al Gore : Arctic Ice Free By 2014
Fourteen years ago, Nobel Laureate Al Gore solemnly told the world that the Artic will be ice-free by 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC31Z5ckros

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

We have cooling around here. I can prove it by just going outdoors. There should be more concern for the trees. There is something going wrong with them. Like all of a sudden they are all sick. Every single tree that has leaves is getting sick. The leaves are all turning brown and falling to the ground. If this keeps up we won't have any trees in 2022.

 

[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 1971:

 

[Anti Globalist]

Still waiting for any climate predictions to actually come true. Have a feeling I'll be a skeleton by the time that happens.

 

[acptulsa]

Still waiting for any climate predictions to actually come true. Have a feeling I'll be a skeleton by the time that happens.

 

[Sammy]

Climate change is still a chinese hoax.

 

[Anti Globalist]

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

 

[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 1995:

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Science[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2021:

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1453798996066119684

 

[Occam's Banana]

h/t Not the Bee: https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1453819720277401600

The Science Religion[SUP]TM[/SUP] in 2021:

https://twitter.com/SovMichael/status/1453737053011595271

 

[Occam's Banana]

You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.

Of course you can. In fact, you cannot do science any other way. The only people you can't have a scientific discussion with are the ones who demand that "the science is settled" - or who insist that "consensus" is any kind of evidence for "correctness".

The following is from "Aliens Cause Global Warming", a lecture presented at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, by Michael Crichton, M.D.

Bold emphasis has been added, and I have inserted relevant quotes from earlier in this thread.

[source: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/mich...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/]

---

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

And this highlights the need for another important distinction to be made: the difference between science and policy.

Unlike policy, science is not normative. It does not tell us whether something should be done about anything (let alone what that something ought to be).

[...] "consensus" is properly a term of policy, not of science.

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

For just one of myriad possible examples, if Max Planck had not disputed the "energy-as-continuum" consensus among physicists, then he would not have become the "Father of Quantum Physics". And notice how quantum physicists don't need to jabber about "scientific consensus" (or how quantum theory is "settled science") in order to defend their theory. Instead, all they have to do is point to the fact that they have the most successful predictive model in all of human history and then say, "Deny this, bitchez!"

If "climate change" alarmists had any models that consistently provided correct predictions, then they wouldn't need to jabber about "consensus" either. Hell, they don't even need a model that works as well as quantum mechanics does. They just need one that works at all.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc[SUP]2[/SUP]. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers.

You're right. They aren't. But do you really understand why?

Notice that Round Earthers don't go around constantly jabbering about a Round Earth "consensus" or about how the Earth's roundness is "settled". They don't need to, because there are no serious people who take Flat Earthism seriously. (I am not convinced that the Flat Earthers themselves really even take it seriously.) Hence, there is no need for Chuck Todd (or any other establishment mouthpiece) to make announcements about not giving air time to Flat Earthers.

But there are plenty of serious people who take "climate change" skepticism seriously - and the only response the "climate change" alarmists can come up with is to shout them down with bullshit cries of "consensus!" and "the science is settled!" - and to declare in a huff that they're not going to give "air time" to "deniers" anymore.

---

In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.

Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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

NBC host Chuck Todd kicked off a full hour of discussion about Climate change on Sunday by telling "Meet the Press" viewers that there would be no debate over the topic - as the "science is settled."

"We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period," said Todd. "We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not."

[...]