- what is a climate skeptic?
- wrong oliver. pretty sure this isn't a cooking show.
Climate Skeptic: Someone who believes that God controls the weather and all of this talk about climate is just Satan's test for true believers.
Yes, fixed it fast but not faster than you.
Or, alternatively, someone who makes their money from petrochemicals and/or fossil fuels, and secretly knows that the climate change is real but thinks it will affect them less than it will affect other people (especially those brown, foreign ones - screw them).
As Upton Sinclair said, it's difficult to persuade someone to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding it.
"Climate change skeptic" is really doing a disservice to the proud tradition of skepticism. Just use "asshole."
"I can't hear you over the weight of the scientific evidence"
^Totally stealing this. Gold.
We owe this type of snark to the two great public institutions of learning: Comedy Central and that channel, you know the one, where people have contests to see who can build the best chopper.
That would seem to be a Climate Change skeptic. At least is admitting that climate is real and not one of Beelzebub's tricks.
being faster wasn't actually my intention, so I apologize if I gave the impression of just being snarky. I was earnestly asking what a climate skeptic was, as googling hadn't clarified to me if they and climate change skeptics were different, interchangeable or a misprint.
it honestly just felt more like an ignorant question if I glossed over the more obvious jamie/john slip without including this lengthy tl;dr explanation. so I was just trying to be light heartedly succinct not a jerk.
Sadly it is a cooking show, actually; Earth, sous vide.
Rather than a room full of scientists, I was actually hoping that they would go Brady-Bunch and have 97 actual Bill Nyes (Bills Nye?) up on a screen debating with three climate change deniers. For some reason that seems more amusing to me. Alternately, and perhaps this is something the networks should consider, is doing the "talking head" image proportionately sized to the number of proponents vs opponents on a show. For example;
Voices would of course be adjusted as well - in this case, with Marsha Blackburn sounding something like either a very small chipmunk or a mosquito.
A conspiracy of meteorologists?
I watched the John Oliver show last night and was struck by one thing from his cavalcade of climate "debates" all featuring Bill Nye. The optics were really bad for the side of science.
You have a very normal looking middle age white dude on the skeptic side, and a bow tie wearing children's show host on the other. Right from the start the climate change denier has an advantage in looking more professional.
I think the scientific community has done themselves a disservice by boycotting these "debates", as dumb as they are. The assumption is that without one of the debaters there would not be a debate, but in practice what happens instead is you get a ringer instead and the "skeptics" get an open platform to let their strawmen go unburned. The evidence is in, it should be possible to crush the skeptic position with regularity. It's time to get the message out.
This is how it should be done. At least on CC "news" shows. The obvious corporate shills should have a string of dollar signs in a crawl below their image.
How did Bill Nye, Bachelor of Science and TV show host, become an authority on anything except undergraduate mechanical engineering and talking to a camera?
By studying, reading, experimenting, and building things?
Do you hold the opposition to the same standard for authority?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.